The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[ValkyrieWings]

Ground Earth Station.

Part of the Satellite network.

Over continental USA, satellite network isn't required due to the availability of the VHF ground network.

"If media advisory information is available, then preference is given first to VHF, then

SATCOM

, and then HFDL"

Yes... we all understand that ACARS automatically generates messages. One was even sent by UA93.

THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.

boo disagrees.

"Feel free to provide some documentation for your claim that the aircraft interrogates with ground stations automatically." - boo

Now, if the aircraft automatically sends messages, is that not an automatic interrogation of where the aircraft is located?

reminder...

"....then uplink routing decision is made based on last successful delivery...."

Fine... you want to be a d*ck when someone is genuinely trying to understand something,... go ahead... be that way

I'm done with you.

Cz

Good, now go to the local airport if you really want to understand, as it is clear you don't want to listen to anything we have to say nor the documents, data and facts provided. Find a pilot, then your first question should be, "How many media advisory messages have you sent via ACARS, Mr/Ms Pilot?"

I'll give you a hint to their answer - "None".

Edited November 20, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[Scott G]

Fine... you want to be a d*ck when someone is genuinely trying to understand something,... go ahead... be that way

Czero, have you ever considered that he'd rather spend his time doing things that provide him with a little more happiness then this? Seriously, this place tires me out on a regular basis. Maybe it tires you out on a regular basis as well. The point is, this is a place where you're going to be spending a lot of time arguing with people. Now put yourself in Valkrye's shoes; I'm going to take a guess and say that this guy is someone high up in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth organization. Perhaps someone who's taught pilots how to fly in large aircraft. Now when you're teaching a pilot, you have one very nice plus; they already know a fair amount; you don't have to go over the basics with them. So he comes here, to try to educate people who know very little about piloting. Not only that, but they insist on getting everything spoon fed to them. Do you understand how this might be just a tad frustrating to him? Now don't think that just because I'm saying all of this to you that I myself have never had a problem like this with someone of his level. Honestly, I created an account on Pilots for 9/11 Truth; I still have it. And I'd ask various questions that clearly showed that I was not exactly an expert on the subject of avionics. The founder of the site, Rob Balsamo, answered several of my questions but there were certainly times when he got frustrated with me; I mean, it's not like I was paying him to educate me on avionics; I was asking him to spend a fair amount of time on this for free. He'd send me to check out threads to try to learn from them. I'm not sure that threads are always the best way to learn, but they are certainly -a- way to learn. PDFs and other documentation are probably much better. And sure, if you have someone who's willing to sit down and answer whatever question you might have, that's great.. for you. But probably not for the guy who's got to teach you if he's doing it free of charge. We all have lives outside of these forums.

Q24 also went over to PFT; he wanted to hear why various 9/11 witnesses didn't qualify as credible south of Citgo witnesses in the pentagon attack (If you've seen

from CIT, you'll know what I'm talking about). Anyway, after bringing up a fair amount of witnesses, and having each of them discredited, Rob got tired of it and stopped him from naming any more. I think it was the fact that Q failed to acknowledge that his alleged witnesses were being discredited one by one. I rather liked to see all of those witnesses being discredited, but I wasn't putting in the work to do it and not having their work acknowledged as effective probably didn't help either.

[bubs49]

Yet the person who I am discussing this with clearly admits that the only research he apparently did was copy this idea from Woody Box and repost it here.

Czero,

sorry, but this is pretty unfair. I never said I copied the idea from Woody Box. To be honest, studying ACARS and 9/11 in general is requiring a lot of time to me. I read and studied a lot of documentation that was not treated in Woody's publications, but simply corroborates it. Partly was already linked here, partly not yet because I am still working on it.

All I meant in my reply to Scott was trying to give the credit of the discovery to Woody, who was the one who presented conclusions about ACARS first in 2009.

Skyeagle used this to attack my analysis based on the fact the Woody is someone allegedly spreading misinformation. Now you attack my conclusions based on the fact they are copied from someone else.

Apparently being fair and honest doesn't pay off at all in this world.

Anyway, no problem. You don't need to apologize for this. This was just a clarification.

Let's keep focusing on facts.

Edited November 20, 2011 by bubs49

[Scott G]

Yes... we all understand that ACARS automatically generates messages. One was even sent by UA93.

THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.

boo disagrees.

"Feel free to provide some documentation for your claim that the aircraft interrogates with ground stations automatically." - boo

Now, if the aircraft automatically sends messages, is that not an automatic interrogation of where the aircraft is located?

reminder...

"....then uplink routing decision is made based on last successful delivery...."

Thanks for putting in all your time Valkrye. I can imagine that sometimes you might get a bit frustrated with some people here. I definitely think it's easier to talk to people who believe the gist of what you're saying then those who have a hard time believing it; when someone such as myself is told that flight 175 was still flying after it allegedly hit one of the Twin Towers, it's easy for me to believe it; I've been believing that 9/11 was an inside job for years now, so what's one more untruth in the official story? If I don't fully understand something you say, I simply assume that if I did, it'd corroborate your other statements. But for someone who believes in the official story, anything they don't understand regarding ACARS is a potential way out of shattering their belief that the official story is true in every significant respect.

As I've mentioned in the past, having someone of your expertise in this thread makes things very easy for people like me and bubs; we can just sit back and watch you take apart the opposing arguments. However, there is definitely a danger here and I know it. The danger is that you will tire of all these people who have such poor knowledge of avionics, in this case in relation to ACARS messages, and leave, as you have done in the past. At that point, people like me and bubs would have to carry on alone. There's one thing I'm interested in knowing; if you were to leave and there was something that me and bubs were having trouble responding to, would sending you a PM get to your attention? I have it set up that PMs send a message to my email, which I certainly would see, not sure about your set up.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Czero,

sorry, but this is pretty unfair. I never said I copied the idea from Woody Box. To be honest, studying ACARS and 9/11 in general is requiring a lot of time to me. I read and studied a lot of documentation that was not treated in Woody's publications, but simply corroborates it. Partly was already linked here, partly not yet because I am still working on it.

You know, I think the whole "working on it" issue is something that some on both sides of this discussion share. I think it's clear that Czero is -trying- to understand everything and certainly putting a fair amount of time in things as well. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a better understanding of ACARS than I do in some respects. However, I have a feeling that you've put in more recently. Ofcourse, all of this is a little off the track; this isn't a matter of who put in more time on this subject, but about whether we can come to an agreement on what the ACARS data meant, specifically: does it confirm or deny that Flight 175 was still airborne after it allegedly crashed into the Twin Tower. I think that given enough time, someone like Czero may come to agree with us. However, I should also point out that I have never found a single official story supporter in a forum that's changed their mind. I know that official story supporters -do- change their mind (me and Valkrye both once believed in the official story regarding 9/11), but it seems that OSS forum posters have a particularly low chance of that occuring. Nevertheless, I'm still learning about things related to 9/11 (such as this ACARS business), and that alone is worth some of my time.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Scott G

[bubs49]

You know, I think the whole "working on it" issue is something that some on both sides of this discussion share. I think it's clear that Czero is -trying- to understand everything and certainly putting a fair amount of time in things as well.

Scott,

I agree with you but we have a problem here. We have four ACARS sent from United Airlines between 8:59 and 9:23 apparently having the format of received uplinks that do not fit at all in the official story. The first three ACARS show a trasmitting RGS which is completely incompatible with the alleged position of United 175 at that time (New York). The fourth ACARS uplink shows a trasmitting RGS which is also completely incompatible with the alleged position of United Airlines (PIT), with the aggravating circumstance that the timestamp is 9:23, that is well 20 minutes after the alleged crash of the aircraft.

The documentation provided so far, included the failed message to United 93 and the interviews to Knerr and Winter, leads to conclude that:

1. the first three ACARS should show a quite different RGS than the actual
   
2. the fourth ACARS message should have been rejected (again refer to the example of the ACARS rejected by United 93), because United 175 was officially destroyed at that time.
   

I found no shred of evidence or argument so far in any site or forum supporting the official theory that can explain how all this was possible without definitely sinking the official version. There is no technical explanation for this, unless you admit that United 175 was airborne and flying in a quite different area than reported by the 9/11 Commission.

Again. Please keep in mind two key points:

• the aircraft must communicate its current RGS to the VHF ground station though a media advisory message in order to the uplinks sent from the ground (ATC/AOC) can reach the aircraft. This is why we say that ACARS is no guessing game.
  
• each and every uplink and downlink is acknowledged by a dedicated technical ack(nowledment) message. This is not the cockpit's acknowledgement (manual). When the ATC/AOC does not receive a technical ack, it tries to send the uplink again and again. After a certain time, the uplink is considered as "not received" and the system switches to a different media (for example from VHF to HF) and tries to reach the aircraft with the new channel.

The supporters of the official version keep requesting sources and documentation, while they failed so far to bring one single piece of evidence supporting their own theory. They must provide a technical explanation for 1. and 2. and they failed to do so so far.

Regards

bubs

Edited November 20, 2011 by bubs49

[Scott G]

Scott,

I agree with you but we have a problem here. We have four ACARS sent from United Airlines between 8:59 and 9:23 apparently having the format of received uplinks that do not fit at all in the official story. The first three ACARS show a trasmitting RGS which is completely incompatible with the alleged position of United 175 at that time (New York). The fourth ACARS uplink shows a trasmitting RGS which is also completely incompatible with the alleged position of United Airlines (PIT), with the aggravating circumstance that the timestamp is 9:23, that is well 20 minutes after the alleged crash of the aircraft.

The documentation provided so far, included the failed message to United 93 and the interviews to Knerr and Winter, leads to conclude that:

1. the first three ACARS should show a quite different RGS than the actual
2. the fourth ACARS message should have been rejected (again refer to the example of the ACARS rejected by United 93), because United 175 was officially destroyed at that time.

I found no shred of evidence or argument so far in any site or forum supporting the official theory that can explain how all this was possible without definitely sinking the official version. There is no technical explanation for this, unless you admit that United 175 was airborne and flying in a quite different area than reported by the 9/11 Commission.

Good point.

Again. Please keep in mind two key points:

• the aircraft must communicate its current RGS to the VHF ground station though a media advisory message in order to the uplinks sent from the ground (ATC/AOC) can reach the aircraft. This is why we say that ACARS is no guessing game.

Wait.. aren't RGSes (Remote Ground Stations) VHF (Very High Frequency) ground stations everywhere but places like the 2 world poles?

• each and every uplink and downlink is acknowledged by a dedicated technical ack(nowledment) message. This is not the cockpit's acknowledgement (manual). When the ATC/AOC does not receive a technical ack, it tries to send the uplink again and again. After a certain time, the uplink is considered as "not received" and the system switches to a different media (for example from VHF to HF) and tries to reach the aircraft with the new channel.

The supporters of the official version keep requesting sources and documentation, while they failed so far to bring one single piece of evidence supporting their own theory. They must provide a technical explanation for 1. and 2. and they failed to do so so far.

If you think about it, they don't actually have to provide documentation for anything, although not providing such documentation does affect the credibility of their arguments. There's also another point: I think there are many who would say that just following this conversation can be difficult for those who have never used the ACARS system themselves; and I think most people fit that description.

I think the most important thing to think about is, what are the elements that keep an educational thread going? I think part of the answer to that question relates to the level of respect that the opposing sides have for each other. I respect the work of some people who support the official story, such as Czero, because he does appear to be trying to digest the documentation that's been offered regarding ACARS. There was a time when I taught english to grade school students in Mexico; when I'd get their homework, I'd mark their mistakes, but I'd also try very hard to understand -why- they made the mistake they did. I found that, with enough analysis, I could figure it out and then rework my lesson plans to try to educate them so that they wouldn't make those mistakes. I try to do the same here, but ofcourse, we all have limits on the amount of time we spend here. Nevertheless, I think that the efforts that both sides of this argument have made to try to reach a consensus as to the significance regarding the ACARS messages has had and will continue to have some positive consequences.

[bubs49]

Wait.. aren't RGSes (Remote Ground Stations) VHF (Very High Frequency) ground stations everywhere but places like the 2 world poles?

Yes. To the best of my knowledge, HF is mostly used to provide coverage in the polar regions where VHF is not available and SATCOM coverage is unreliable.

It was only an example, however I should correct that passage from "(for example from VHF to HF)" to "(for example from VHF to Satcom), which is the most common situation, I think.

Communications are normally conducted via VHF, whenever available. When the aircraft is outside of VHF range, however, there are two other options:

• "SATCOM": ACARS sent via a satellite link that provides worldwide coverage with the exception of the poles. For example, when you're flying over oceans, no VHF is obviously available, so you must rely on Satcom
  
• "HF datalink": a relatively new system which was completed in 2001, which provides coverage all over the world, including the polar regions. HF is a much cheaper option than SATCOM.
  

Unless I am grossly misunderstanding, the reason why VHF is always used whenever available is that it's the cheapest form of communication (Satcom being the most expensive).

[Q24]

Q24 also went over to PFT; he wanted to hear why various 9/11 witnesses didn't qualify as credible south of Citgo witnesses in the pentagon attack (If you've seen

from CIT, you'll know what I'm talking about). Anyway, after bringing up a fair amount of witnesses, and having each of them discredited, Rob got tired of it and stopped him from naming any more. I think it was the fact that Q failed to acknowledge that his alleged witnesses were being discredited one by one. I rather liked to see all of those witnesses being discredited, but I wasn't putting in the work to do it and not having their work acknowledged as effective probably didn't help either.

Sorry Scott, that is wrong.

I fully welcomed, acknowledged and noted all issues raised. You can check this fact on the thread. The whole point of the thread was exactly that - to end up with a list of objections to the eyewitness statements. Had I got through the near forty eyewitnesses who specifically corroborate the official flight path and/or impact, that list of objections would have run to considerable (intolerable/unsustainable) length. Not to mention the objections were bizarre, e.g. Madelyn Zakhem may be related to Dov Zakheim and/or has a Jewish surname so should be discounted - that’s on the first eyewitness alone hehe. It was truly desperate. Thus, rather than be faced with the ‘no impact’ theory looking ridiculous, the exercise was quickly shutdown through deletion of legitimate eyewitness accounts - censor of information flow.

There are some who aren’t actually interested in the truth at Pilots for 9/11… ‘Truth’.

Edited November 20, 2011 by Q24

[booNyzarC]

Yes... we all understand that ACARS automatically generates messages. One was even sent by UA93.

THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE.

boo disagrees.

"Feel free to provide some documentation for your claim that the aircraft interrogates with ground stations automatically." - boo

No, I don't disagree. I've never said that there aren't any automatically generated messages. My intention was to dispute your claim here:

False.

ACARS is not a guessing game.

What happens if the aircraft is re-routed? Re-routes happen 1000's of times per day all over the world. What happens if the aircraft is re-routed by ATC, and later dispatch wants to contact the aircraft via ACARS. The aircraft will never receive the message if system just guesses where the aircraft is based on flight planned route and time.

As i stated before,

the aircraft ACARS unit is

constantly

being interrogated by the network

to determine which ground station is best to transmit

.

It is similar to how cell phones work. When you get a call in NYC, it is not routed through a cell station in Pittsburgh as your last known location. It is routed through a cell tower in NY.

The documentation I've provided shows that the aircraft ACARS unit is NOT constantly being interrogated by the network. The documentation I've provided describes the uplink routing algorithm which includes instances where the aircraft ACARS unit has NOT successfully sent a message to the ground within the last 12 minutes.

Just to be completely clear, the routing isn't always guesswork. Most of the time it isn't guesswork at all, but the system itself allows for situations when guesswork is needed; which confirms the possibility that ACARS messages can be routed through the wrong ground stations whether the aircraft is in the air or not.

Now, if the aircraft automatically sends messages, is that not an automatic interrogation of where the aircraft is located?

reminder...

"....then uplink routing decision is made based on last successful delivery...."

The aircraft does automatically send messages when certain events happen, but it is NOT a constant interrogation of the aircraft ACARS unit from the network. That is the point.

Good, now go to the local airport if you really want to understand, as it is clear you don't want to listen to anything we have to say nor the documents, data and facts provided. Find a pilot, then your first question should be, "How many media advisory messages have you sent via ACARS, Mr/Ms Pilot?"

I'll give you a hint to their answer - "None".

Once again, this is a strawman. I've made no claim that pilots send media advisories through ACARS every 12 minutes.

Why are you unable to back up your assertion that the aircraft ACARS unit is constantly being interrogated by the network to determine which ground station is best to transmit? Because this is what is in dispute, not the other strawman arguments you are tossing out. Defend that assertion and you may have made a case for the planes still being in the air after the reported crash times. Until you do so, it is indisputable that ACARS does in fact rely on guesswork for the routing of messages in the event that the aircraft hasn't checked in.

[Scott G]

Sorry Scott, that is wrong.

I fully welcomed, acknowledged and noted all issues raised. You can check this fact on the thread.

I was there Q. For the most part, you just seemed to go from one witness to the next; you missed a ton of points that were made and you never seemed to think that the points made were fatal to the credibility of the alleged SoC witnesses you brought up. I said this in the thread as well.

The whole point of the thread was exactly that - to end up with a list of objections to the eyewitness statements. Had I got through the near forty eyewitnesses who specifically corroborate the official flight path and/or impact, that list of objections would have run to considerable (intolerable/unsustainable) length.

As you may remember, I wanted to let you go through all your alleged SoC witnesses; however, Rob had felt that you should address the points already made, which is something you weren't interested in doing.

Not to mention the objections were bizarre, e.g. Madelyn Zakhem may be related to Dov Zakheim and/or has a Jewish surname so should be discounted - that's on the first eyewitness alone hehe. It was truly desperate.

That wasn't the only point raised concerning Madelyn Zakhem. We've gone over this terrain before, but I don't think you caught all the points made, either at PFT, or my repetition of the same points in this very forum in another thread. Here's a good post on the subject:

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3071280

Here's another:

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3071475

Thus, rather than be faced with the 'no impact' theory looking ridiculous, the exercise was quickly shutdown through deletion of legitimate eyewitness accounts - censor of information flow.

We clearly disagree on this; for me, Rob was tired of you bringing up a long list of witnesses that were each discredited, but you not admitting this was the case and just moving on to the next. For you, it's as you say.

There are some who aren't actually interested in the truth at Pilots for 9/11… 'Truth'.

There is one thing I'll say in your favour; you were fairly civil over there, as is your nature in general and some over there weren't so civil in return. When insults occur, one thing that tends to happen is that people can get way too emotionally involved, and forget the evidence before them. This is something that I think has happened to you on this issue. This being as it may be, I'm fairly sure that Valkrye is a high level member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth and the information he's brought over here has been invaluable in furthering the discussion on this thread.

[booNyzarC]

--

I definitely think it's easier to talk to people who believe the gist of what you're saying then those who have a hard time believing it; when someone such as myself is told that flight 175 was still flying after it allegedly hit one of the Twin Towers, it's easy for me to believe it; I've been believing that 9/11 was an inside job for years now, so what's one more untruth in the official story? If I don't fully understand something you say, I simply assume that if I did, it'd corroborate your other statements.

This could explain quite a bit about why you accept conspiracy theories at face value.

But for someone who believes in the official story, anything they don't understand regarding ACARS is a potential way out of shattering their belief that the official story is true in every significant respect.

--

Funny, I see it quite the opposite way. You don't understand ACARS but you are willing to just accept that Valkyrie is right even though I've provided documentation proving his assertion incorrect.

Confirmation Bias.

Sorry to be so blunt.

[bubs49]

The documentation I've provided shows that the aircraft ACARS unit is NOT constantly being interrogated by the network. The documentation I've provided describes the uplink routing algorithm which includes instances where the aircraft ACARS unit has NOT successfully sent a message to the ground within the last 12 minutes.

Just to be completely clear, the routing isn't always guesswork. Most of the time it isn't guesswork at all, but the system itself allows for situations when guesswork is needed; which confirms the possibility that ACARS messages can be routed through the wrong ground stations whether the aircraft is in the air or not.

Nope.

Obviously it is possible that ACARS messages are routed through the wrong RGS. This normally happens when the last received downlink from the aircraft is obsolete. The DSP routes the uplinks from ATC/AOC based on the last known downlink (media advisory message). So, if for any reason the aircraft is currently outside the coverage area of the last known RGS (for example because it entered into another RGS coverage area or is flying through an area without VHF coverage), the uplink will not be received by the aircraft. So, the ATC/AOC will receive a "NOACK" message, which indicates that the transmission was not successful. In laymen terms: the ACARS will not be received and you will see a failed message log.

Please understand that until the aircraft communicates its current RGS, there is no way for the ATC/AOC to know where the aircraft is. This is a typical guesswork case.

Referring to the 9/11 story and particularly to the case of United 175, you should now explain:

1. How could three different uplinks sent between 8:59 and 9:03 be routed through the same RGS (MDT, Harrisburg) if the aircraft was officially in the New York area?
   If your answer is "ACARS messages can be routed through the wrong ground stations whether the aircraft is in the air or not", please be sure that this answer is wrong! The DSP does not choose an RGS arbitrarily. It uses the last known RGS, meaning that United 175 necessarily flew within the coverage area of the Harrisburg RGS (MDT) sometime on the morning on 9/11. And this simple fact is completely incompatible with the official story and definitely sinks the official version. There is no technical explanation why four different uplinks sent from United Airlines should be routed through the Harrisburg and Pittsburg RGSs, unless you admit that United 175 was there. Also, please note that Harrisburg is far from being contiguous to New York. Not to talk about Pittsburgh. How could United 175 possibly be contacted through the Harrisburg (MDT) and Pittsburgh (PIT) RGS if it had never flown there?
   Even if we concede that all 4 uplinks were routed through the wrong RGS, you still have to prove why the DSP routed the uplinks through the Harrisburg and Pittsbugh ground stations, while the aircraft officially never flew there and was hundreds miles far from there (New York).
   
2. Why all 4 ACARS related to United 175, but particularly the fourth routed through the Pittsburg RGS, have the format of a successful uplink and not the format of a failed log? Can you prove that at least the fourth ACARS sent to United 175 from Ed Ballinger at 9:23 was not received? If you can't, you must conclude that the message was received and the aircraft was actually there, was still airborne and did not crash into the South Tower.
   

Edited November 20, 2011 by bubs49

[ValkyrieWings]

Nope.

Obviously it is possible that ACARS messages are routed through the wrong RGS. This normally happens when the last received downlink from the aircraft is obsolete.

Thanks bubs, you saved me some time on my Sunday...

"Constantly being interrogated" does not mean continuously every second or millisecond. It means consistent interrogation for purposes of determining the best RGS. Again in laymens terms... the quote from boo's own document...

Section 5.3.2 - ARINC Internetworking Function, Routing, and Use of Media Advisories, and Prioritization which documents:

Internetworking functionality implemented at ARINC is applicable to all ARINC networks described above as well as the SITA network. ARINC determines routing algorithms for uplinks originated by FANS ATSPs connected to ARINC networks

based on media advisory information.

"based on media advisory information" are the keywords. Note the bold.

If media advisory information is available, then preference is given first to VHF, then SATCOM, and then HFDL. If media advisory information is not available...

... due to lost of electrical power, aircraft crash... etc....

....then uplink routing decision is made based on last

successful

delivery....

... of the last media advisory message. Again, note the bold above.

If no

[media advisory, direct pilot communication via acars, weather, re-routes... etc]

messages have been delivered to/from aircraft within last

twelve minutes

...

Meaning the network expects an interrogation at least every 12 minutes... automatic or manual.... to determine the best RGS...

... then ARINC makes FANS uplink routing decision based on static information

[of "last successful delivery...."]

Again, and the question boo keeps avoiding, if ACARS was a guessing game, how would ATC, Dispatch, or crew scheduling communicate with an aircraft via ACARS if there was a re-route? Why does the above pdf quote provided by boo repeat "successful" delivery, instead of just saying "sent message"?

It is because the system is designed to alert if a message fails receipt.

As repeated ad nauseum, if N612UA crashed into the south tower flying in a Northeastern direction, the ACARS messages should have been routed through the numerous RGS stations around NYC, or perhaps RGS stations in CT or MA, not MDT or PIT.

Again, many aircraft were re-routed into a 180 degree turn from their normal routes on the morning of 911. Planes heading east with destinations in NY, Boston, Washington.. .etc, were turn 180 degrees to the west. It's in the RADES data itself and seen in 9/11 Intercepted by Pilots For 9/11 Truth. If ACARS was such a guessing game as speculated by boo and Cz, and the network could not determine the best ground stations through automatic interrogation messages such as media advisory, auto weather updates, auto downlinks of engine parameters.. .etc, and was instead based on flight plan and time - guessing the best RGS, none of these aircraft would have received ACARS, as messages would be routed through station in the Boston, NY and Washington (their original destinations), while the real airplane was somewhere over northwestern Ohio on its way to Chicago.

But the fact is all of them received their ACARS messages. Because the system automatically interrogates to determine the best ground stations for transmit.

Let us know when you find one that has failed receipt... or "unsuccessful delivery".

Edited November 20, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[Q24]

I was there Q. For the most part, you just seemed to go from one witness to the next; you missed a ton of points that were made and you never seemed to think that the points made were fatal to the credibility of the alleged SoC witnesses you brought up. I said this in the thread as well.

I acknowledged all objections to the eyewitness testimony - they are summarised in my own posts. What do you think that is at the end of my post #13? But you are right, I never saw how even one was “fatal” to a single eyewitness… you know why? Because they are not; they are ridiculous objections from people who have hung their hat on ‘no impact’ and would claim anything to maintain it.

Anyhow, I can’t be bothered to give a full response to your post. When you acknowledge the flight path that Madelyn Zakhem clearly described then I’ll perhaps take you seriously on the topic. I don’t think, “Over the VDOT STC building” and “No not over the Annex, went straight to the Pentagon” are difficult to comprehend. Not meaning to be rude, just saying.

[skyeagle409]

Nope.

Obviously it is possible that ACARS messages are routed through the wrong RGS. This normally happens when the last received downlink from the aircraft is obsolete. The DSP routes the uplinks from ATC/AOC based on the last known downlink (media advisory message). So, if for any reason the aircraft is currently outside the coverage area of the last known RGS (for example because it entered into another RGS coverage area or is flying through an area without VHF coverage), the uplink will not be received by the aircraft. So, the ATC/AOC will receive a "NOACK" message, which indicates that the transmission was not successful. In laymen terms: the ACARS will not be received and you will see a failed message log.

Please understand that until the aircraft communicates its current RGS, there is no way for the ATC/AOC to know where the aircraft is. This is a typical guesswork case.

Referring to the 9/11 story and particularly to the case of United 175, you should now explain:

1. How could three different uplinks sent between 8:59 and 9:03 be routed through the same RGS (MDT, Harrisburg) if the aircraft was officially in the New York area?
   If your answer is "ACARS messages can be routed through the wrong ground stations whether the aircraft is in the air or not", please be sure that this answer is wrong! The DSP does not choose an RGS arbitrarily. It uses the last known RGS, meaning that United 175 necessarily flew within the coverage area of the Harrisburg RGS (MDT) sometime on the morning on 9/11. And this simple fact is completely incompatible with the official story and definitely sinks the official version. There is no technical explanation why four different uplinks sent from United Airlines should be routed through the Harrisburg and Pittsburg RGSs, unless you admit that United 175 was there. Also, please note that Harrisburg is far from being contiguous to New York. Not to talk about Pittsburgh. How could United 175 possibly be contacted through the Harrisburg (MDT) and Pittsburgh (PIT) RGS if it had never flown there?
   Even if we concede that all 4 uplinks were routed through the wrong RGS, you still have to prove why the DSP routed the uplinks through the Harrisburg and Pittsbugh ground stations, while the aircraft officially never flew there and was hundreds miles far from there (New York).
2. Why all 4 ACARS related to United 175, but particularly the fourth routed through the Pittsburg RGS, have the format of a successful uplink and not the format of a failed log? Can you prove that at least the fourth ACARS sent to United 175 from Ed Ballinger at 9:23 was not received? If you can't, you must conclude that the message was received and the aircraft was actually there, was still airborne and did not crash into the South Tower.

For the record, ACARS never had United 175 in that area, and in fact, United 175 impacted the south WTC building. That reality can be easily ascertained by the very fact that remains of some of the passengers of United 175 were recovered from the wreckage of the south WTC. Secondly, United Airlines confirmed that United 175 crashed in New York, which was confirmed on radar, and lastly, the registration number for United 175 has now been deregistered. What you are presentingd in regards to ACARS message is moot and it shows that you do not understand what is involved in regards to ACARS messages. When he sent the message, he had no idea that United 175 was the commercial airliner that crashed into the south WTC center.

Edited November 20, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

As repeated ad nauseum, if N612UA crashed into the south tower flying in a Northeastern direction, the ACARS messages should have been routed through the numerous RGS stations around NYC, or perhaps RGS stations in CT or MA, not MDT or PIT.

What makes you think so? I already posted that there were no ACARS replies from United 175, N612UA, after it crashed into the south WTC building, which was confirmed by United Airlines, radar data, and the fact that remains of some of the victims of United 175 were recovered from the wreckage of the south WTC.

To further add, and to repeat, the registration number, N612UA, has now been deregistered by the FAA, which simply means that the United Airlines, B-767, for which that number was registered, is no longer in service because the aircraft crashed into the south WTC building. All you have to do, or anyone for that matter, is to simply call United Airlines and ask what happened to United 175, N612UA.

Edited November 20, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

1. How could three different uplinks sent between 8:59 and 9:03 be routed through the same RGS (MDT, Harrisburg) if the aircraft was officially in the New York area?
   

As repeated ad nauseum, if N612UA crashed into the south tower flying in a Northeastern direction, the ACARS messages should have been routed through the numerous RGS stations around NYC, or perhaps RGS stations in CT or MA, not MDT or PIT.

Flight 175 did pass closer to MDT than to NYC, CT or MA during a period of the final 12 minutes of flight.

That is an obvious possible explanation of how MDT picked up the link.

Understanding how the final ACARS message came to be transmitted from PIT is not so straight cut, but booNyzarC has provided a potential solution initially in post #788. To repeat from the link provided: -

“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.”

It is possible that after failing to receive a message from Flight 175 for a period longer than 12 minutes the ACARS deferred to the flight plan or used previous latitude and longitude readings to determine the aircraft should be located in the PIT vicinity at the given time. Finally, I see no definitive evidence of whether that final message to Flight 175 was actually received or not - neither the message text or dispatcher interviews confirm it.

The question needs to be put to UA and/or one of the dispatchers with an internal understanding of ACARS to determine what happens when an aircraft stops transmitting (particularly regarding, “configurable by customer’s request”). I would have thought this is the type of obtainable information that Pilots for 9/11 Truth should be following up on.

Without that, the ACARS record is inconclusive.

[ValkyrieWings]

Flight 175 did pass closer to MDT than to NYC, CT or MA during a period of the final 12 minutes of flight.

False.

At the point which "UA175" passed closest to MDT, it was roughly 75 miles from MDT.

At that point it was,

- 10 miles from the Easton, PA RGS

- 35 miles from the PHL RGS in Philly

- 50 miles from ILG RGS in Wilmington, DE

- 60 miles from downtown NYC

- 53 miles from EWR RGS in Newark

- 68 miles from LGA RGS at Laguardia

- 70 miles from JFK RGS at Kennedy

- 50 miles from the RGS near Sandy Hook, NJ

"UA175" had 8 (EIGHT) RGS stations closer to it's flight path than MDT when it was at it's closest point to MDT.

All other points along it's path during the 0845 to the 0900 time frame were further from MDT, and closer to the stations mentioned above, with more stations even closer such as HPN in White plains, DPK RGS in Deer Park, NY co-located with DPK VOR.. .etc.

It is impossible for the ACARS to have been routed through MDT (not to mention PIT) if the aircraft crashed into the WTC South Tower.

Edited November 21, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[booNyzarC]

It is impossible for the ACARS to have been routed through MDT (not to mention PIT) if the aircraft crashed into the WTC South Tower.

False.

[ValkyrieWings]

False.

Well, that seals it for me. What an excellent argument! Now we can put it to bed. boo solved it all with one word... lol

Hey boo, by the way, if the messages were routed based on estimated flight plan and flight time, the messages should have been routed through UNV (State College, PA), which was less than 5 miles from the Jet Airway in the flight planned route during that time.

You can observe the swaps occurring in this clip. First near NYC during the 'turn-around', then later along the Jet airway out in western PA when "UA175" received an ACARS through PIT.

Enjoy...

[Q24]

False.

At the point which "UA175" passed closest to MDT, it was roughly 75 miles from MDT.

At that point it was,

- 10 miles from the Easton, PA RGS

- 35 miles from the PHL RGS in Philly

- 50 miles from ILG RGS in Wilmington, DE

- 60 miles from downtown NYC

- 53 miles from EWR RGS in Newark

- 68 miles from LGA RGS at Laguardia

- 70 miles from JFK RGS at Kennedy

- 50 miles from the RGS near Sandy Hook, NJ

Agreed on MDT, I’m getting a bit less than 75 miles.

Noted CT and MA you originally mentioned are not included in the list.

I’m getting around 80 miles for New York proper.

I’d like to look into particulars of that and the rest but don’t have time at the moment.

Further note: ACARS is not dependent on distance alone. Other factors are geographical features and aircraft altitude, more I’m sure. It is signal strength which is ultimately the decider. I’m sure people have experienced wireless routers picking up a stronger signal for their neighbours’ internet connection than their own in the same room - same principle.

It is impossible for the ACARS to have been routed through MDT (not to mention PIT) if the aircraft crashed into the WTC South Tower.

I’m not convinced. I’d like to hear it from one of the airlines or dispatchers. They had access to the ACARS messages (they raised them), yet in the interviews we have seen none expressed surprise at the MDT/PIT readout. Why? It’s their job, they know the flight paths, geography and ACARS system. I can’t see it would have gone unnoticed if something a basic fact so “impossible” was inherent.

I’m not opposed to a plane swap. Though I would think that when that happens all communication links are also swapped or severed. It’s an incredibly ill-conceived plan otherwise.

[ValkyrieWings]

I’m not convinced. I’d like to hear it from one of the airlines or dispatchers.

No one is here to convince you.

I sent an email to an ACARS/FDR/Radar expert who is also an Electrical Engineer.

Here is what he had to say....

My question -

Hi xxxxxx,

Quick question...

How does the ACARS network know which Remote Ground Station to use when sending a message to an aircraft?

Hope you're doing well....

Regards,

xxxxxxxx

His reply -

From: xxxxx

To: xxxxxxxxx

Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011

the aircraft are constantly in contact with whatever ground station is nearest to it. more or less in 'data link' mode, sending acknowledgements back and forth. In cases where multiple statons on the ground are within range, the dropped packet numbers decide which ground station gets the priority. not as sophisticated as N.T.D.S. (naval tactical data systems) but pretty close to that. unfortunately the standard ACARS logs you get on F.O.I.A. releases are

not all inclusive of these check in's or message packets or dropped packet transmissions.

on a more 'system' level, the ground stations are more or less in spread spectrum constant transmit mode like cell phones now use, so they won't step on each other continually. when an aircraft receiver's MDS (minimum discernible signal) sensitivity is achieved or reached out of the 'tangential' noise floor level, the

aircraft's reciever then begins to try to data frame sync with the ground. then once that happens and two way 'ping pong' as data link persons refer to it, happens, then any queued messages get shipped to the receiving system and data relative to the aircraft's flight get sent back down to the ground.

ACARS isn't there strictly for pilot to base communications, two way messaging. ACARS serves a multitude of purposes, many of them

requiring zero crew intervention of any kind. In any case, the 'human' side of ACARS is the 'least' of the reason that the system exists.

Pretty much the same point's i've been making not to mention it makes sense. In other words, what good is a multi-million dollar network worth if aircraft are being re-routed, never able to receive the messages if it were a guessing game based on flight planned route and estimated time in flight. The network would be worthless if that were the case.

As stated ad nauseum, if UA175 was in the NYC area at 8:59 - 9:03, the messages should have been routed through LGA, JFK or EWR remote ground stations (among the numerous other stations surrounding NYC within a 10-15 miles radius), not routed almost 140 miles away in MDT. If you are in NYC, cell calls are not routed through a tower in Harrisburg PA, they come from cell towers in NYC. More will be forthcoming.

Edited November 21, 2011 by ValkyrieWings

[Scott G]

What makes you think so? I already posted that there were no ACARS replies from United 175, N612UA, after it crashed into the south WTC building, which was confirmed by United Airlines, radar data,

No pilot made any replies after an aircraft alleged to be UA 175 hit the South Tower. However, the actual UA 175 wasn't in the vicinity of the South Tower a bit before an aircraft crashed into South Tower, as evidenced by the fact that it had made it clear to a Remote Ground Station in Harrisburg (MDT) that the best signal strength it had was from there; and 20 minutes -after- an aircraft hit the South Tower, the ACARS system had decided that it was now closest to Pitsburgh, or PIT. Do you understand this skye? bubs was trying to get the fact that data that you yourself quoted was showing that UA 175 was near Pitsburgh back in this post from bubs:

skyeagle,

have you taken the time to take a closer look at what you've posted?

How do you explain that "PIT" in the ACARS message?

Do you have a pale idea what we're talking about here?

Do you happen to know what an RGS station is and how do uplink messages to aircrafts are sent?

How do you explain that an aircraft supposed do have crashed 20 minutes before receives an ACARS message at 9:23 in the Pittsburgh area?

In response to his post, you stated:

As I have said before, the ACARS message never proved that United 175 was anywhere near Cleveland because radar contact had United 175 over New York at 9:02

What you fail to realize is that what was on radar was a blip; there was no aircraft squawking UA 175 for a while before an aircraft hit the South Tower. Once the transponder had been turned off, which the official story states happened at around 8:47am, a drone could have gotten close to it and then headed towards the South Tower while the real UA 175 headed towards Harrisburg (MDT) and then Pitsburgh (PIT). ACARS made it clear where the true UA 175, tail number N612UA, truly was. And the irony is that you yourself posted the information which showed where ACARS stated it was 20 minutes after an aircraft hit the South Tower. Here's what you posted back in post #747:

Balinger's warning N612UA to beware of any cockpit intrusion as 2 aircraft already hit in New York City. It's sending the message to PIT's RGS, aka Pitsburgh's Remote Ground Station, because that's the last location that N612UA's ACARS said it was closest to signal strength wise.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Scott G

[bubs49]

Finally, I see no definitive evidence of whether that final message to Flight 175 was actually received or not - neither the message text or dispatcher interviews confirm it.

[...]

I’m not convinced. I’d like to hear it from one of the airlines or dispatchers. They had access to the ACARS messages (they raised them), yet in the interviews we have seen none expressed surprise at the MDT/PIT readout. Why? It’s their job, they know the flight paths, geography and ACARS system. I can’t see it would have gone unnoticed if something a basic fact so “impossible” was inherent.

Do David Knerr and Michael J. Winter from UAL help? They both were interiewed by FBI and the content of their statements is available in the PDFs I linked at post #759 and post #765. Unfortunately their interviews do not mention the ACARS sent to Flight 175 specifically, only ACARS sent to Flight 93. However, we know from their statements which ACARS were received by United 93 and which were not. The following are two examples of ACARS that were received by United 93:

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

This is the last message received by United 93 according to United Airlines:

DDLXCXA CHIAK CHI68R

.CHIAKUA 111410/ED

CMD

AN 591UA/GL CMI

- QUCHIAKUA 1UA93 EWRSFO

- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD _

DO NOT DIVERT TO DC AREA

CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111411 108575 0707

This is one of the five ACARS (Messages #20-#24) which, according to Winter and Knerr, were not received by United 93 and were rejected:

CHIAO CHI68R

.CHIAOUA 111420/ROB

CMD

AN 591UA/GL DEC

- QUCHIAOUA 2

DDLXCXA

***UA93 EWRSFO***

Winter's quote:

Messages #20 to #24 were sent to the aircraft from CHIDD. However, all of the messages were rejected indicating the aircraft did not receive them.

If United 175 were destroyed at 9:03 as the official version reports, we would expect to see a log such as this above (rejected by United 93) and not a log such as this:

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

The question needs to be put to UA and/or one of the dispatchers with an internal understanding of ACARS to determine what happens when an aircraft stops transmitting (particularly regarding, “configurable by customer’s request”). I would have thought this is the type of obtainable information that Pilots for 9/11 Truth should be following up on.Without that, the ACARS record is inconclusive.

I agree with you that this issue needs further investigation.

Edited November 21, 2011 by bubs49