The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

December 4, 2011

Hey Scott G, you might want to ask Balsamo about his source for the plane swap radar data while you're over there. You know, the data which contributed to that video clip you were so impressed with earlier. Let's see the hard data behind that clip.

December 4, 2011

Ballinger seems to resolve the issue for us:

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.

Again, though, and I'm not sure why this keeps needing to be repeated to you, Ballinger is not an expert.

The above statement confirms that Ballinger was one step removed from the aircraft in the ACARS chain, i.e. the message is delivered “through AIRINC”. With that in mind, the statement fits just fine in that the second timestamp could be receipt of the message by AIRINC, or even confirmation of the upload. Again, it is not necessarily a receipt from the aircraft.

I don’t think we need point out Ballinger is not an expert or claim he was mistaken.

December 4, 2011

I don’t think we need point out Ballinger is not an expert or claim he was mistaken.

I agree that we don't need to point out that he was mistaken but I do think it bears repeating that he is not an expert in light of the fact that some seem to be holding Ballinger up as one.

Cz

December 4, 2011

Given the lack of definite information / confirmation for "duplicate planes", someone who is debating their side honestly should be willing to concede the point that perhaps their side is mistaken.

You consider the duplicate plane theory for United 175 inconclusive.

No problem, I respect your opinion.

What about United 93? We have a long list of ACARS which not only show a format of (apparently) received ACARS, but which were confirmed as received by Winter and Knerr and prove that the aircraft was far away from Shanksville at the time of the alleged crash in PA. I won't paste them again because I am confident you know them by heart. Messages #13, #14 and #15 (declared received by Winter) reached the aircraft between 9:50 and 9:51 EDT over Toledo (TOL), messages #16 and #17 reached the aircraft over Fort Wayne (FWA) at 9:51 EDT, finally messages #18 and #19 reached the aircraft at 10:10 EDT over Champaign (CMI).

Wherever United 93 was at 10:03 on the track between TOL and CMI, at no time its distance from Shanksville was closer than 300 nm. Even assuming that ACARS are sent based on the flight plan, there is no way it could receive such messages.

Are you ready to admit that at least United 93 was duplicated?

Well said bubs. Perhaps Czero missed your post; I know I didn't read its contents (or know of this information) until now.

December 4, 2011

Reponse to Czero's post #1547, Part 1

Ballinger seems to resolve the issue for us:

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.

Again, though, and I'm not sure why this keeps needing to be repeated to you, Ballinger is not an expert. Sure he uses, or rather used, the ACARS systems, but as Valyrie himself even said:

"Is Ballinger an ARINC Expert?

No, he is a dispatcher who knows less about ACARS than a pilot would.."

That's straight from the man himself. That should mean something to you, shouldn't it?

Indeed. Fortunately, Balsamo, someone who I believe knows as much or perhaps more than Valkyrie has now commented on this specific point. Here's his response:

He isn't an ACARS expert. He is a Dispatcher. and it's not that we are putting "trust" in him, we are reporting what he said. Others are trying to make excuses for it without any source for their speculation whatsoever. I don't expect Ballinger to know how the messages are routed but he surely is expected to know how to read his own ACARS and what the time stamps mean, yes?
Just like gman isnt familiar with Cat A and B Flight Tracking [apparently gman is someone who deals with ACARS messages, I suspect booN knows more)- Scott], I dont expect Ballinger to be... but clearly Ballinger knows more about the time stamps and ACARS format at United Airlines than gman does....

Source: http://pilotsfor911t...showtopic=21756 [balsamo's post written today at 2:47am]

ETA...

And while there may be many members at PFT who use or have used ACARS extensively, I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of them are just really skilled and practiced end-users. They know how to do what they need to do with the system because they've used it for a long time, but as far as the inner workings, specifications and details of the communications technology and protocols involved are concerned, I'd guess that a lot of them aren't very well versed in them. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, but that's my opinion.

You may well be right on that. However, they clearly have atleast -one- ACARS expert; Dennis Cimino. So I asked Balsamo the following question:

***I know that one of your core members is an ACARS expert; he's even quoted in your article. Does he agree that the second time stamp was indeed denoting that the message had been received by the aircraft?***

I found his response to be quite illuminating:

***Conversely, Dennis is an ACARS expert, not a Dispatcher, I wouldn't expect him to know exactly what the time stamps mean at United Airlines when the messages can be tailored to the needs of United. But Dennis certainly knows how they are routed, and as he has stated from the beginning corroborated by source documents, the messages would not be routed through MDT and PIT if the aircraft were in NY, regardless if they are received or not.***

Dave Knerr IS the acknowledged expert, or at least one of them if you include Michael Winter, and, even though you believe he is lying about this (apparently for no other reason than it contradicts your side's story) he has said for the record that the fourth message to UA715 was not received.

I didn't say he was lying. I said that he was -probably- lying, which is a bit different. Perhaps he was misinformed. Then again, perhaps he never said this at all and someone simply attributed him saying it. I'm not sure. What I -am- sure is that his statement makes no sense. It makes no sense because Ballinger, who everyone knows was the United Airlines dispatcher who sent the ACARS messages in question, probably knew how to read them. Onesliceshort, another member at Pilots for 9/11 Truth elaborated on why that would probably be the case:

***

Just to add my 2cents on the alleged "printer timestamp" ...wtf would be the point of a printer timestamp when those on the ground would want to know at exactly what time the response was received? Or even sent in case of any future investigation (crash, mishap or accusation against aviation personnel both in the air and on the ground), or to make a call on whether they've received the message in time to avert the danger.

Say, for example, a warning was sent where the pilot had to divert from his course because of a weather front or even better warn them of possible hijackers on his aircraft and that they had to lock their doors (as were sent on 9/11), those on the ground would want to know the exact time that the message was received!

Makes no sense whatsoever.

***

Its also been made blatantly obvious that he was looking at the complete ACARS record obtained through ARINC, not just the printer log from Ballinger's desk. We don't have the complete ACARS record to peruse, so we don't know exactly what he was looking at or just how many messages are missing from Ballinger's printer log.

While it would certainly be nice to have all of the messages, I don't see how that's relevant in the case of the messages that have been shown to the public.

You can't just hand-wave away expert testimony.

Rob Balsamo has made it clear that Ballinger qualifies as such in regards to the ACARS messages. And it looks like Winter and Knerr may actually know less concerning airliner ACARS printouts, considering what Balsamo has mentioned about ACARS experts.

Can you point to something that "gman" has posted here?

Didn't think so.

I'm not overly interested in rehashing conversations from other boards in this forum.

I understand, but booN is. You may not have noticed, but he mentioned gman before I did. It's why I decided to include some of Balsamo's arguments against his theories.

December 4, 2011

Response to Czero's post #1547, Part 2 (last part)

You'll notice that the information BooNy and I have been posting are verifiable documents from verifiable sources (ARINC, Boeing, Airbus etc.).

Balsamo's article does the same, but perhaps you haven't noticed. Have you read it yet?

There are lots of posts on other boards that I've looked at, some that support my side, some that support yours, and some that support different stories. You'll notice that I haven't used them because, imo, they are unverifiable hearsay for the most part, and they are on another board.

Someone who is skilled at logical arguments doesn't care who makes the argument; with logic, they can figure out the validity of the argument.

Sure, some may have pointed me in a certain direction, given me insight into an aspect I hadn't considered, or led me to a document I have provided as a source here, but the interpretation and research posted is MINE and BOONY's.

I certainly do enough research. But if someone else has done some good research, I see no reason why I shouldn't use it.

I really don't care much what "Balsamo" or "gman" have to say. If "Balsamo" is or was "Valkyrie" then it looks to me like he lost his opportunity to voice his opinions here because he felt it was more important to "slam everyone" than to discuss this topic honestly.

Valkyrie can't post here anymore; you know that. I don't know if Balsamo was Valkyrie. But I think that you, like many, have gotten too emotionally involved in all of this. Valkyrie was someone who was anonymous from the start, like you, me and booNy. Balsamo is not. He's the Co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an organization whose core members are all experts in avionics. You want expertise? He's your man.

I have spent many, many hours over the last week or so searching for and reading through literally hundreds of documents and links for the information I have posted. You'll notice that throughout this discussion I've been pretty steadfast in posting just what I know, or just what I can provide a legitimate source for. When something is just my opinion, I say so and generally provide a reason via sources for that opinion. I don't claim to be an expert by any stretch of the imagination, but BooNy and I have been doing the grunt work here, and we've been learning quite a lot. We fully admit that we could be wrong, but at the end of the day, what we are presenting is OUR RESEARCH, no one else's.

Why you want to work alone, I don't know. I prefer working with professionals in avionics, and I do.

I understand that you may have time constraints, and that's understandable, but the fact that you regularly just cut n paste other people's ideas, skip over points that we are then forced to re-iterate to you, sometimes multiple times, makes this a very frustrating discussion to have with you.

Czero, is there anyone on my side of the debate that you -haven't- become frustrated with at some point or other? To some extent it's normal. I remember when I got frustrated with you over in the TWA 800 thread as well. We're arguing from different sides of an issue and that's bound to cause frustration at some point or other. But you seem to get frustrated with someone and it -sticks-. Wandering thought that you put Valkyrie on ignore. Did you? You told bubs a while back that you wouldn't respond to his posts anymore because you had trouble understanding him; have you kept to that? Please Czero, just take a breather. Let it go. We're not your enemies here.

That said, yes, I do "cut n paste" at times. And though I'm fairly thorough, I'm sure that at times, I skip over points. But if you think that I'm the only person who does that in this thread, you've got another thing coming. Keeping a thread going is not easy. I should know; I try very hard to do just that. Throughout the years, I've been fairly successful. I think the main reason is that I generally get along, to a lesser or greater extent, with most of the people in the thread. I also try to mediate between people who I think contribute to the thread but who don't get along with each other. I also do this 'thread tree' thing, which I find very useful, because it allows me to see which posts haven't yet been responded to. Now as I've pointed out to some people, simply having a thread tree of all the posts in a thread does -not- guarantee that you'll respond to all the points asked of you. As a matter of fact, it doesn't even guarantee that you'll respond to all the posts addressed to you. It's one thing to be able to see what posts were responded to and which ones weren't, but it's quite another to even have the time to respond to all the posts, let alone all the points in those posts.

In the last bit of time, I've noticed something; with Valkyrie gone, I've found that all of a sudden, I have to deal with the most of the response work. Put bluntly, there's no way I can respond to every point sent my way. So I pick and choose. You may be happy to know that of all the posters on your side of the argument, you're generally the person I give most preference to in this thread. At times, it would be Q24. Then there's booN and skye. On my side, there's bubs and Wanderer; I started thinking that while I respond to the other side of the debate a fair amount, I generally don't respond to people who are on my side, and with Valkyrie gone it seems that I really have to put more energy into that, so I've started to try doing that.

Because of my nature, I've come to view conversations as a privilege. I know there's the saying "talk is cheap", but the hidden premise behind this saying is that there is a -type- of talk that is cheap. When I talk, I try to say things that come from the heart. And I think that, ultimately, this is why I'm able to fashion threads that frequently have a long lifespan.

I will once again suggest that you should take the time to examine the evidence in detail YOURSELF, do the research YOURSELF, make determinations YOURSELF, and the post your opinion IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Then we can have honest debate.

I think what we're getting into here is assumptions; in essence, I believe you're saying that I put my trust in the words of others too much. The irony is that the people who you assume I put my trust in too much would be prone to disagree with you. As I've mentioned more then once, I was once suspended from Pilots for 9/11 Truth for 3 months. It didn't happen because I put my trust in them too much, let me assure you. Now I remember your conversation with Valkyrie. I'm not sure who he was, but I'm fairly sure that he was someone important in Pilots for 9/11 Truth. I believe I could see how you sweated, trying to understand a ton of information, while he breezed by your arguments. What I hope you considered is why he did this. If, as I believe, he was a commercial airline pilot, he would have already had years of training in many things that you essentially had to take a crash course on. So I understood your frustration when he'd tell you to go look for yet more information when I imagine you'd already done so much. I personally am somewhat more averse to burying myself in PDF documents, to be sure. But as I've mentioned elsewhere, I will read them when I feel that they're crucial to understanding a point.

As you may have noticed, I prefer getting my knowledge from people who have already done the legwork. As I've said many times, why reinvent the wheel? There's only so many hours in a day; if I can just borrow someone else's wheels, I can get a lot more done.

If my opinion and your opinion still disagree after researching the documentation available, then fine, so be it. I'd rather disagree with your opinion, than just seeing you post the words, thoughts and theories of other people who aren't here for whatever reason or who can't be here because they can't behave properly.

However, that's just me. If you are alright with being looked upon as essentially a "sock puppet" for other people's ideas, research and theories, then that's your choice.

I don't think that's fair. Is a reporter looked down upon when he reports the theory of a scientist? No. Not only that, but most of the time, the ideas and theories I bring up from other people have become mine as well. You don't need to be the originator of an idea or theory to make it your own.

December 4, 2011

It is possible the message was routed through PIT based on track and/or flight plan of the aircraft, i.e. at 9:23 the system estimated that Flight 175 should have been in that area according to previous heading and/or standing data. If you read some of booNyzarC’s posts it is explained in more detail.
Really this issue was over some 50 pages ago - it’s just been going in circles (not that I’d ever be guilty of that )

It’s not the nailed on evidence of a plane switch some have made it out to be.

Hi Q24,

I thought that if a plane went off the radar or deviates and disappears, the projected tracking display doesn't project the plane back on the original flight plan. So I'm not sure if it's a valid argument??

I'm far from being an expert on the subject, in fact I'm something of a complete newbie and just took an interest in the subject while it's being discussed. It doesn't appear there is any valid way for the message to be routed through PIT if the plane hit the towers in New York.

I am also surprised that the message from MDT was supposedly received as well, considering it was over 100 miles away which would mean it's too far away to be able to receive it, if I understand the arguments correctly, but what that all means, I don't know?? :wacko:

And don't worry, I do not think this is nailed on evidence of a plane switch, just evidence that shows it as a possibility.

Cheers

Stundie

December 5, 2011

It is possible the message was routed through PIT based on track and/or flight plan of the aircraft, i.e. at 9:23 the system estimated that Flight 175 should have been in that area according to previous heading and/or standing data. If you read some of booNyzarC's posts it is explained in more detail.

Really this issue was over some 50 pages ago - it's just been going in circles (not that I'd ever be guilty of that )

It's not the nailed on evidence of a plane switch some have made it out to be.

Hi Q24,

I thought that if a plane went off the radar or deviates and disappears, the projected tracking display doesn't project the plane back on the original flight plan. So I'm not sure if it's a valid argument??

It's not. Q24 is mistaken on this. For starters, he seems to be making the assumption that a plane's flight plan would dictate where its messages are routed to. This isn't the case, as Valkyrie has explained more then once. I believe that Czero is also aware of this, but I'm not sure that booN is. The plane's ACARS itself is the one that decides which station it would prefer to have its messages routed from.

I'm far from being an expert on the subject, in fact I'm something of a complete newbie and just took an interest in the subject while it's being discussed. It doesn't appear there is any valid way for the message to be routed through PIT if the plane hit the towers in New York.

Especially if the plane crashed in New York 20 minutes prior and the message was still received by the aircraft :w00t: . There is strong evidence that this is precisely what happened. Nevertheless, even if it wasn't received, it wouldn't have been routed to PIT because the plane never got close enough to PIT to make it a viable routing option. Rob Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, made this clear in a recent post:

***Dennis [an ACARS expert] certainly knows how they are routed, and as he has stated from the beginning corroborated by source documents, the messages would not be routed through MDT and PIT if the aircraft were in NY, regardless if they are received or not.***

Source: http://pilotsfor911t...hp?showforum=19 , the post with 2:47am time stamp.

I am also surprised that the message from MDT was supposedly received as well, considering it was over 100 miles away which would mean it's too far away to be able to receive it, if I understand the arguments correctly, but what that all means, I don't know??

It means the plane wasn't in New Yor City; it was near MDT (aka Harrisburg). The plane that hit the South Tower wasn't the real UA 175, tail number N612UA. You may wish to read the following articles on the subject by Woody Box:

Two "Flight 175" taking off from Boston Logan: CONFIRMED

Flight 175 was duplicated: Threefold Confirmation

Woody Box is an active participant in Pilots for 9/11 Truth as well, and no one objected to me congratulating him on these 2 articles, suggesting that his work is well received there.

And don't worry, I do not think this is nailed on evidence of a plane switch, just evidence that shows it as a possibility.

Q24 agrees on that point anyway. So does Czero and perhaps booN. I, on the other hand, think it's much more than just a possiblity; I think it's almost certain. The ACARS messages are only one element that strongly suggests that the real UA 175 was switched for a drone. There's also the fact that the aircraft that hit the South Tower was going way too fast for an unmodified 767.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Scott G

December 5, 2011

It's not. Q24 is mistaken on this. For starters, he seems to be making the assumption that a plane's flight plan would dictate where its messages are routed to. This isn't the case, as Valkyrie has explained more then once. I believe that Czero is also aware of this, but I'm not sure that booN is. The plane's ACARS itself is the one that decides which station it would prefer to have its messages routed from.

How can you be so sure about any of this Scott G? Just because Balsamo says so? Just because Balsamo claims that his self proclaimed ACARS Expert, Dennis Cimino, says so? You seem to be taking a lot of things on faith here. I'm not willing to take these things on faith. Cz and I have provided documentation which supports our alternate hypothesis and Balsamo hasn't falsified that hypothesis with documentation.

Ballinger himself has told us that the flight plan plays a role.

Ballinger stated that it is not the dispatcher's job to monitor tracking of the flight path.

The flight path information he has is not actual radar data but is a system that

anticipates where the plane would be given its flight plan etc...

(

Source on page 8

)

Do you dismiss this statement by Ballinger simply because it doesn't agree with Balsamo's version?

We've provided documentation which supports this and we provided it long before Ballinger's statement was even posted by Skyeagle. Where is the documentation from Balsamo and Cimino which falsifies this?

I'm going to have to more clearly lay out the hypothesis before you'll actually understand it won't I?

December 5, 2011

Well said bubs. Perhaps Czero missed your post.

Thank you for reminding him about my post, Scott. I guess Czero has me on his ignore list or my English keeps on being too miserable for his standard despite all my efforts to make it as much "understandable" for him as for any other poster here. Or maybe the United 93's case is simply "out of his interest", just like some ACARS sent to United 175 and United 93 were "out of interest" for the Commission.

Curious coincidence.

Anyway, my question is still there for anyone who will bother to answer. Based on the ACARS available and confirmed as received by Winter and Knerr, can anybody disprove that after 10:03 EDT United 93 was:

still airborne
not even close to the alleged crash site?

Of course, everybody else's opinion, thought or refutation is also welcome.

December 5, 2011

Hi Q24,

I thought that if a plane went off the radar or deviates and disappears, the projected tracking display doesn't project the plane back on the original flight plan. So I'm not sure if it's a valid argument??

It has not been confirmed that ACARS works the same as radar when a plane is lost. However, in my post I did include a mention to “track” and “previous heading” data to cover that possibility. It appears the projected flight path (based on previous heading) could have placed the aircraft in vicinity of the MDT and then PIT stations, i.e. the aircraft was headed that general direction immediately prior turning for New York and impacting the WTC shortly thereafter. If no heading update were received after that turn, it is possible ACARS deduced the aircraft was still headed West.

I'm going to have to more clearly lay out the hypothesis before you'll actually understand it won't I?

Thought of the day: “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

Best of luck.

December 5, 2011

Response to booNy's Post #1559, Part 1

It's not. Q24 is mistaken on this. For starters, he seems to be making the assumption that a plane's flight plan would dictate where its messages are routed to. This isn't the case, as Valkyrie has explained more then once. I believe that Czero is also aware of this, but I'm not sure that booN is. The plane's ACARS itself is the one that decides which station it would prefer to have its messages routed from.

How can you be so sure about any of this Scott G? Just because Balsamo says so? Just because Balsamo claims that his self proclaimed ACARS Expert, Dennis Cimino, says so?

Balsamo's word alone is worth something, seeing as he's the co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. As I mentioned before, there's a reason so many people link to his articles. And seeing as how Dennis Cimino is listed as an ACARS expert and a core member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I definitely think that this lends weight to the claim as well. By the way, are you Boone870 on ATS? Someone by that name was looking to validate whether Dennis Cimino was an FDR expert around 4 years ago, thought perhaps this was you. Anyway, this isn't the only reason I feel so sure about this. I also feel sure about it because of all of the evidence that has been uncovered on this issue in this very thread. I just finished reading Pilots for 9/11 Truth's ACARS article in its entirety and there's a portion that I think answers your question quite well:

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

Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not. ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Comprehensive List Of ACARS Remote Ground Stations Worldwide - scribd source link - Page 100

If you get on an airplane in say Chicago, headed for NY, you turn off your cell phone and off you go. When you arrive in NY, you turn on your cell phone and see you have a message waiting. Was this message routed through a cell tower in Chicago? No, you would never receive it, nor be alerted that you have a message waiting. It is routed through a cell tower in NY. How does the cell network know where you are?

Although not exactly the same, but similar to how cell phones track your phone based on location, choosing the best cell towers to route messages to your phone, ACARS networks track the aircraft in flight and know where the aircraft is in order to route messages to the aircraft (or vice versa) through the best remote stations on the ground. When a message is sent from the ground or in flight, it is routed through a Central Processing System. This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location. Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process. Category A and B.

First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.

The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.

The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.

Some have further gone on to speculate that United Airlines Dispatchers routed the messages themselves based on flight planned route. Flight Tracking protocol as described renders this argument moot as the Dispatcher does not have control over ARINC routing of ACARS messages through remote ground stations. This type of premise is the equivalent of saying that when you call someone from your cell phone, you have the capability to choose which cell tower around the world you want your call to be routed. It's absurd. ...

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

Source: ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

Edited December 5, 2011 by Scott G

December 5, 2011

Scott, I've read his article. There is no need to spam it here.

Can you explain how this in any way invalidates the hypothesis we've presented?

Edit: I'll more fully respond to the content of that post so that hopefully you can at least see my point of view.

Edited December 5, 2011 by booNyzarC

December 5, 2011

Balsamo's word alone is worth something, seeing as he's the co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. As I mentioned before, there's a reason so many people link to his articles. And seeing as how Dennis Cimino is listed as an ACARS expert and a core member of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, I definitely think that this lends weight to the claim as well.

Balsamo's word alone isn't worth anything in this debate, nor is Cimino's. If they could substantiate their claims with documentation, that would be worth something. If they know what they claim to know and have the connections they claim to have, providing documentation shouldn't be too hard if their claims actually have merit.

By the way, are you Boone870 on ATS? Someone by that name was looking to validate whether Dennis Cimino was an FDR expert around 4 years ago, thought perhaps this was you.

No I'm not even registered on ATS, but I did happen upon his thread today and I think he asks worthwhile questions. If Cimino truly is an ACARS Expert, he seems to have left that detail off of his resume. His resume is impressive though, assuming it is accurate. In fact, with everything he says that he's done I find it amazing that he found the time to become an ACARS Expert on top of his other duties.

Anyway, this isn't the only reason I feel so sure about this. I also feel sure about it because of all of the evidence that has been uncovered on this issue in this very thread. I just finished reading Pilots for 9/11 Truth's ACARS article in its entirety and there's a portion that I think answers your question quite well:

You just finished reading the article in its entirety now? Really? You linked us to it on Thursday and just now got around to reading it in full? Wow... :blink:

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

Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not. ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Comprehensive List Of ACARS Remote Ground Stations Worldwide - scribd source link - Page 100

I agree that the key to this whole question lies in how the messages are routed, and I love the fact that he's using a reference that I provided to him. :rolleyes:

If you get on an airplane in say Chicago, headed for NY, you turn off your cell phone and off you go. When you arrive in NY, you turn on your cell phone and see you have a message waiting. Was this message routed through a cell tower in Chicago? No, you would never receive it, nor be alerted that you have a message waiting. It is routed through a cell tower in NY. How does the cell network know where you are?

Although not exactly the same, but similar to how cell phones track your phone based on location, choosing the best cell towers to route messages to your phone, ACARS networks track the aircraft in flight and know where the aircraft is in order to route messages to the aircraft (or vice versa) through the best remote stations on the ground. When a message is sent from the ground or in flight, it is routed through a Central Processing System. This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location. Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process. Category A and B.

First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.

The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.

Cell phone call routing is a good analogy that a lot of people can identify with. It isn't really a good representation of what ACARS uses, but it certainly does provide some good imagery for people to wrap their minds around.

For the most part I agree with Balsamo's descriptions of the routing, with a couple of clarifications.

My first contention arises when he states "This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location." This isn't entirely accurate. The system attempts to predict the best routing decision based on a set of data it has available including the original flight plan, successfully sent tracker messages, and probably several other factors. Remember, ACARS isn't like RADAR. It doesn't keep track of the exact location of the aircraft, it just keeps track of the stations which it believes would be best for routing messages through.

My second contention arises when he is describing Category B protocol and states "The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course." This isn't continuous. This decision of which RGS station to use is made every few minutes. It is a small contention, but worthy of mention. The point is that the routing decisions are not continuous with either protocol.

Category A is intended to be refreshed every 10 to 12 minutes automatically if the aircraft hasn't sent a downlink request within that time frame.
Category B is intended to be refreshed every few minutes (3+?) if the aircraft hasn't sent a downlink request within that time frame.

This is all explained to some degree in that Global Link issue that Cz brought to our attention previously.

The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.

What Balsamo is doing here is misrepresenting the hypothesis we've provided. First of all, nobody has ever claimed that the routing decision is based solely on the flight plan. You are familiar with what a strawman argument is, right? That's what Balsamo is presenting here.

Secondly, the above descriptions of Category A and Category B protocols would normally account for what Balsamo presents here when an aircraft is diverted without updating its flight plan with the ACARS system. Given enough time the aircraft would automatically establish a successful downlink and acquire a new set of RGS stations (or station, singular, as the case would apparently be when using Category B protocol) as preferred for routing.

If that aircraft wasn't given enough time to successfully downlink and acquire the new set of stations, as would be the case if that aircraft had crashed into the World Trade Center, the CPS would be left relying on the information it already had on hand for additional routing decisions; like the original flight plan, the most recent successful tracker downlink, etc...

Do you get that part? It's pretty important to understand that part.

Q24 described this very succinctly a few posts back. It really isn't that difficult a concept to get. Please tell me you at least understand the concept.

Some have further gone on to speculate that United Airlines Dispatchers routed the messages themselves based on flight planned route. Flight Tracking protocol as described renders this argument moot as the Dispatcher does not have control over ARINC routing of ACARS messages through remote ground stations. This type of premise is the equivalent of saying that when you call someone from your cell phone, you have the capability to choose which cell tower around the world you want your call to be routed. It's absurd. ...

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

Source: ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

I think we've firmly established that this idea is indeed absurd. Balsamo only points it out to try to make his argument look stronger than it actually is.

In reality, he hasn't refuted our hypothesis. Nobody has to my knowledge.

December 5, 2011

It has not been confirmed that ACARS works the same as radar when a plane is lost. However, in my post I did include a mention to “track” and “previous heading” data to cover that possibility. It appears the projected flight path (based on previous heading) could have placed the aircraft in vicinity of the MDT and then PIT stations, i.e. the aircraft was headed that general direction immediately prior turning for New York and impacting the WTC shortly thereafter. If no heading update were received after that turn, it is possible ACARS deduced the aircraft was still headed West.

Very well stated Q24. Hopefully the simplicity of your language will allow more people to understand.

Thought of the day: “There are none so blind as those who will not see”.

Best of luck.

Much appreciated. I fear pictures may be needed though.

December 5, 2011

I have some catching up to do here, so I may skip over some points that are less crucial to the discussion:

Perhaps Czero missed your post; I know I didn't read its contents (or know of this information) until now.

I did miss it, and I'm working on a response at the moment.

Indeed. Fortunately, Balsamo, someone who I believe knows as much or perhaps more than Valkyrie

Fair enough.

has now commented on this specific point. Here's his response:
He isn't an ACARS expert. He is a Dispatcher. and it's not that we are putting "trust" in him, we are reporting what he said. Others are trying to make excuses for it without any source for their speculation whatsoever. I don't expect Ballinger to know how the messages are routed but he surely is expected to know how to read his own ACARS and what the time stamps mean, yes?
Just like gman isnt familiar with Cat A and B Flight Tracking [apparently gman is someone who deals with ACARS messages, I suspect booN knows more)- Scott], I dont expect Ballinger to be... but clearly Ballinger knows more about the time stamps and ACARS format at United Airlines than gman does....

Regarding the bolded portions above, I tend to agree. Yes, Ballinger should know more about what the timestamps mean. It is unfortunate that his interviews, to our knowledge, do not include his "take" on the timings of the messages and whether or not he knew or could tell from the message log if they were received or not.

With the absence of that information, however, we only have what has been put on the record but Knerr and Winter.

You may well be right on that. However, they clearly have atleast -one- ACARS expert; Dennis Cimino. So I asked Balsamo the following question:
***I know that one of your core members is an ACARS expert; he's even quoted in your article. Does he agree that the second time stamp was indeed denoting that the message had been received by the aircraft?***

I found his response to be quite illuminating:

***Conversely, Dennis is an ACARS expert, not a Dispatcher, I wouldn't expect him to know exactly what the time stamps mean at United Airlines when the messages can be tailored to the needs of United. But Dennis certainly knows how they are routed, and as he has stated from the beginning corroborated by source documents, the messages would not be routed through MDT and PIT if the aircraft were in NY, regardless if they are received or not.***

Perhaps a link to those source documents could be provided.

I didn't say he was lying. I said that he was -probably- lying, which is a bit different.

Then I guess I misunderstood when you said he "must be lying" here:

I agree with you up until this point; and I do believe that, assuming that Knerr truly stated that the Rogers message failed, he probably knows this isn't true and thus must be lying.

Perhaps he was misinformed.

By who...? He's the one who did the audit of the ACARS messages. He doesn't indicate that he has someone do it for him.

Then again, perhaps he never said this at all and someone simply attributed him saying it. I'm not sure.

Then let me clarify for you. From the Memorandum for the Record linked previously:

David Knerr, Manager, Flight Data Automation, provided the briefing. Knerr stated that he accomplished an "ACARS audit" on 9·11 on both VA 175 and UA93 "by noon." He verbally certified that he presented to Mr. Kara in compiled form all of the ACARS information relevant to both flights that day.
He also certified during a review of critical time frames that there was no ACARS technical or textual information that either captured or depicted the several flight deviations, both controller-directed and pilot-initiated, that occurred during the flight of each United flight. He also certified that there was no ACARS record that the flight crew of United 175 communicated its prior knowledge of the unusual cockpit communications it heard on takeoff from Logan Airport or that it was both deviated away

So he's the one who dealt directly with the ACARS evidence.

Notice that it is said that he had "all of the ACARS information relevant to both flights". This is proof that we don't have all of the ACARS message trail available to us.

Notice that it is said that there was "no ACARS technical or textual information that either captured or depicted the several flight deviations, both controller-directed and pilot-initiated, that occurred during the flight of each United flight". This is proof that there were no flight route updates provided to ARINC for these flights. IF the ACARS system did use static flight route information to choose the correct RGS, then after a certain amount of time with no communications from the aircraft, it would "default" back to the previous tracking information. After a certain amount of time, that information is no longer available, but the static information is still there, and is apparently unchanged from the flight's intended routing. MDT and PIT are along that routing.

What I -am- sure is that his statement makes no sense. It makes no sense because Ballinger, who everyone knows was the United Airlines dispatcher who sent the ACARS messages in question, probably knew how to read them.

I agree and it is again unfortunate that he was not asked more questions about those timings.

Onesliceshort, another member at Pilots for 9/11 Truth elaborated on why that would probably be the case:
***

Just to add my 2cents on the alleged "printer timestamp" ...wtf would be the point of a printer timestamp when those on the ground would want to know at exactly what time the response was received? Or even sent in case of any future investigation (crash, mishap or accusation against aviation personnel both in the air and on the ground), or to make a call on whether they've received the message in time to avert the danger.

Say, for example, a warning was sent where the pilot had to divert from his course because of a weather front or even better warn them of possible hijackers on his aircraft and that they had to lock their doors (as were sent on 9/11), those on the ground would want to know the exact time that the message was received!

Makes no sense whatsoever.

***

My only response to this is that this is the reason why all ACARS communications are kept logged with ARINC for 90 days. In the event of an crash or other accident, those stored messages would be retrieved and investigated since they would contain ALL the relevant information, not just what an airline decides is relevant to their dispatchers or op's centre staff. One can reasonably assume that the stored message information would include all relevant timings and time stamps, possible even down to the acknowledgement times of individual message blocks.

Again, though... we are not privy to that level of detailed information.

However, Dave Knerr and Michael Winter were given that detailed information.

While it would certainly be nice to have all of the messages, I don't see how that's relevant in the case of the messages that have been shown to the public.

Please re-read the section immediately preceding this one.

Rob Balsamo has made it clear that Ballinger qualifies as such in regards to the ACARS messages.

DO you mean where he says this in the portion of his response you quoted earlier in your message:

He isn't an ACARS expert

?

Note: From this point on, quoted text will appear blue and will be "bookended" with **asterisks** since I have posted the allowed amount of quoted text blocks.

**And it looks like Winter and Knerr may actually know less concerning airliner ACARS printouts, considering what Balsamo has mentioned about ACARS experts.**

That's interesting because we have no printouts from the airliners. We only have an incomplete log of what was on Ballinger's printer, which is obviously not the information that Knerr an Winter were using when they did their audits.

**I understand, but booN is. You may not have noticed, but he mentioned gman before I did. It's why I decided to include some of Balsamo's arguments against his theories.**

Nope, I didn't notice, but it doesn't change my standpoint.

Continued....

Cz

December 5, 2011

Part 2

Balsamo's article does the same, but perhaps you haven't noticed. Have you read it yet?

Nope... I still haven't, but if he's using the same information that we've presented here, which seems to be what BooNy stated recently, then there's not much point in me going there just to see documents I already have referenced and still have access to.

Someone who is skilled at logical arguments doesn't care who makes the argument; with logic, they can figure out the validity of the argument.

Ok... but that doesn't change the fact that I personally look at those posts that do not contain references to source material to be unverified hearsay, nor does that change my standpoint about using posts from other boards on this forum.

I certainly do enough research.

With all due respect, I don't believe that you do. I'm not saying that you're lying. Perhaps the amount of research you do is sufficient for you, but when there are aspects of this issue that you are lacking knowledge of, some of the most basic issues that I have pointed out to you previously (Dave Knerr as one example), it becomes very obvious, to me at least, that you aren't doing enough of your own research and are relying too heavily on the words, thoughts and theories of others.

Valkyrie can't post here anymore; you know that. I don't know if Balsamo was Valkyrie. But I think that you, like many, have gotten too emotionally involved in all of this.

I can see how you might think that, and all I can say in my "defense" is that what you perceived as my "emotionalism" was in actuality my desire to have an honest debate / discussion with someone who's main motivation wasn't to "slam everyone".

Why you want to work alone, I don't know. I prefer working with professionals in avionics, and I do.

Technically, I'm not doing this alone, I'm doing this with BooNy, however, that is beside the point you are making.

I have found that the best way for me to learn something new - new software, new technology, etc. - is to dive into it and try and figure my way through it on my own terms.

Czero, is there anyone on my side of the debate that you -haven't- become frustrated with at some point or other? To some extent it's normal. I remember when I got frustrated with you over in the TWA 800 thread as well. We're arguing from different sides of an issue and that's bound to cause frustration at some point or other. But you seem to get frustrated with someone and it -sticks-. Wandering thought that you put Valkyrie on ignore. Did you?

Yes, exactly when I said I was going to. I was tired of dealing with his attitude. I still have him on ignore, actually. Just haven't gotten around to taking him off it yet.

You told bubs a while back that you wouldn't respond to his posts anymore because you had trouble understanding him; have you kept to that?

What I was saying with regards to Bubs was that perhaps due to the language barrier he wasn't understanding what I was saying. He was presenting a part of his discussion from a certain standpoint that was incorrect. Perhaps, because of the language barrier, I was misunderstanding him, but after several attempts to clarify the discussion, it appeared obvious to me that it wasn't going anywhere.

For the record, Bubs is not on my ignore list. There are onyl two people that I have ever put on ignore on this board, and Valkyrie was the second.

Please Czero, just take a breather. Let it go. We're not your enemies here.

I don't think I ever claimed you were. I have explained my reasoning with regards to Valkyrie, despite the fact that I don't really owe you or anyone any justification those actions.

Now I remember your conversation with Valkyrie. I'm not sure who he was, but I'm fairly sure that he was someone important in Pilots for 9/11 Truth. I believe I could see how you sweated, trying to understand a ton of information, while he breezed by your arguments. What I hope you considered is why he did this. If, as I believe, he was a commercial airline pilot, he would have already had years of training in many things that you essentially had to take a crash course on. So I understood your frustration when he'd tell you to go look for yet more information when I imagine you'd already done so much. I personally am somewhat more averse to burying myself in PDF documents, to be sure. But as I've mentioned elsewhere, I will read them when I feel that they're crucial to understanding a point.

My "beef" with Valkyrie was not that he would tell me to go look it up myself, it was his mannerisms and attitude, pure and simple.

I am a firm believer that you can tell anyone anything you want. It is of much less importance WHAT you say, and of great importance HOW you say it.

As you may have noticed, I prefer getting my knowledge from people who have already done the legwork. As I've said many times, why reinvent the wheel? There's only so many hours in a day; if I can just borrow someone else's wheels, I can get a lot more done.

That's all fine and good, and if it works for you, great. Personally, I feel that when you get the answers from someone who has "done the legwork" you may be able to answer a question, but you might not have the understanding of what that answer actually is saying. This is why I prefer to read the information myself from verifiable sources. It gets me the answer and in most cases, the understanding.

I don't think that's fair. Is a reporter looked down upon when he reports the theory of a scientist? No. Not only that, but most of the time, the ideas and theories I bring up from other people have become mine as well. You don't need to be the originator of an idea or theory to make it your own.

If a reported submitted a story to his editor and listed off his sources as people from a message board with an obvious bias, provided little to no supporting documentation, and it was clear that all he was doing was reciting word for word what someone else had said while displaying little understanding, then its doubtful that reporter's story would get published.

The difference here is that we are dealing with the same information, essentially, with differing interpretations.

Cz

Edited December 5, 2011 by Czero 101

December 5, 2011

Thank you for reminding him about my post, Scott. I guess Czero has me on his ignore list or my English keeps on being too miserable for his standard despite all my efforts to make it as much "understandable" for him as for any other poster here. Or maybe the United 93's case is simply "out of his interest", just like some ACARS sent to United 175 and United 93 were "out of interest" for the Commission.

Curious coincidence.

Anyway, my question is still there for anyone who will bother to answer. Based on the ACARS available and confirmed as received by Winter and Knerr, can anybody disprove that after 10:03 EDT United 93 was:

still airborne

not even close to the alleged crash site?

Of course, everybody else's opinion, thought or refutation is also welcome.

As stated previously I don't have you on ignore, and I am working on a response.

Cz

December 5, 2011

It has not been confirmed that ACARS works the same as radar when a plane is lost. However, in my post I did include a mention to “track” and “previous heading” data to cover that possibility. It appears the projected flight path (based on previous heading) could have placed the aircraft in vicinity of the MDT and then PIT stations, i.e. the aircraft was headed that general direction immediately prior turning for New York and impacting the WTC shortly thereafter. If no heading update were received after that turn, it is possible ACARS deduced the aircraft was still headed West.

Just to clarify here, when Ballinger discusses that he has no access to the ATC radar tracks, and the system he has is predictive based on flight routes, he is referring to the ASD (Aircraft Situation Display) display he had at his desk. If my understanding is correct, based on the documents provided to this point, it relies on transponder information from the aircraft, predicts the aircraft's general position, and is or was generally used to route aircraft around weather systems.

This is not the same system that we are referring to when we say that under certain circumstances where the aircraft has been out of communications for a certain time ACARS may refer to flight routes provided by the airline to determine the best RGS location to use to communicate with the aircraft. This is what we believe is being referred to in the documentation as "static information". The airline has to ability to update this information when needed.

Certainly when an aircraft is diverted due to weather or whatever other reasons may come up, an aircraft's flight route can be, and most probably would be updated through ACARS. However, in the situations present on 9/11, it has been made clear that, at least in the case of the hijacked aircraft, the ACARS route information was not updated.

Cz

December 5, 2011

Scott...

So I had a look at the PFT thread you linked earlier. Interesting stuff...

All they have done was provide source documents which they thought supported their "hypothesis", but in reality corroborated what our experts have said since day 1.
Since the cat is half way out the bag... we played Cz and booN to do the legwork finding the sources via the net, as we knew they didn't have the expertise to interpret the information, instead we knew they would interpret the documents based on their confirmation bias and have nothing but speculation to offer. They did an excellent job gathering document to support real and verified experts.

This is one of the reasons Cz and booN will never come here, nor amount to anything on this topic. But, we will continue to use them...

No... the reason I won't sign up at PFT is because it is run in part by a self-righteous preening as***le named Rob Balsamo.

If this is the type of "organization", person, mindset and methodology you wish to support, by all means... have at 'er... but I will no longer be fodder for his agenda.

I'm done with this topic, and while I appreciate your efforts to keep this topic moving, I am truly sad to say this, but I am probably done with you as well.

Good day.

Cz

Edited December 5, 2011 by Czero 101

December 5, 2011

Response to booNy's Post #1559, Part 2 (last part)

How can you be so sure about any of this Scott G? Just because Balsamo says so? Just because Balsamo claims that his self proclaimed ACARS Expert, Dennis Cimino, says so? You seem to be taking a lot of things on faith here. I'm not willing to take these things on faith. Cz and I have provided documentation which supports our alternate hypothesis and Balsamo hasn't falsified that hypothesis with documentation.

Actually, I believe he did; with your own documentation. Time and again, he's argued that you don't understand the documentation you use to reach your conclusions.

Ballinger himself has told us that the flight plan plays a role.

Ballinger stated that it is not the dispatcher's job to monitor tracking of the flight path.
The flight path information he has is not actual radar data but is a system that
anticipates where the plane would be given its flight plan etc...
(
Source on page 8
)

Do you dismiss this statement by Ballinger simply because it doesn't agree with Balsamo's version?

Not at all. His statement is perfectly valid, for what it's talking about; his knowledge the location of an aircraft he believed to be UA 175. It has nothing to do with the ACARS knowledge of where UA 175 truly was.

We've provided documentation which supports this and we provided it long before Ballinger's statement was even posted by Skyeagle. Where is the documentation from Balsamo and Cimino which falsifies this?

It's probably the same documentation, intepreted properly.

I'm going to have to more clearly lay out the hypothesis before you'll actually understand it won't I?

Specifics always help in arguments. But you may find that it's you who doesn't understand some elements on how ACARS works.

December 5, 2011

Response to post #1564, Part 1

Balsamo's word alone isn't worth anything in this debate, nor is Cimino's.

Why not? They're both experts in avionics. Balsamo is the co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an organization whose core members are avionics professionals. Balsamo has vouched for Cimino as an expert in ACARS and Cimino is also on the core member list of Pilots for 9/11 Truth. This alone should engender some respect in what they have to say.

If they could substantiate their claims with documentation, that would be worth something.

They have. You say that you read Balsamo's article. Did you notice the linked documentation?

No I'm not even registered on ATS, but I did happen upon his thread today and I think he asks worthwhile questions. If Cimino truly is an ACARS Expert, he seems to have left that detail off of his resume. His resume is impressive though, assuming it is accurate.

How did you even find it? It doesn't show his name; I tried to see the contact info, but apparently I'd have to sign up first. That being said, the fact that, like the shorter resume in Pilots for 9/11 Truth's "core member" list, he also has 2 radar patents, and they seem to be for the same things (one for "droop compensation" and the other for "waveguard arc detecction") highly suggest that they're one and the same person.

In fact, with everything he says that he's done I find it amazing that he found the time to become an ACARS Expert on top of his other duties.

According to PFT's core member list resumes, he's been a "Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973". Ever consider the possibility that he's atleast semi retired?

You just finished reading the article in its entirety now? Really? You linked us to it on Thursday and just now got around to reading it in full? Wow...

Laugh :-p. I had skimmed over it before, but yes, I just finished reading it in its entirety yesterday. We all have limits on the amount of time we have. In the past, I thought that I'd already read enough of it for my uses. However, after some consideration, I decided that reading it from start to finish might be best and I think that this was the right choice. More later.

December 5, 2011

Response to post #1564, Part 2

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

Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not. ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Comprehensive List Of ACARS Remote Ground Stations Worldwide - scribd source link - Page 100

I agree that the key to this whole question lies in how the messages are routed, and I love the fact that he's using a reference that I provided to him.

How do you know that Valkyrie is Balsamo? All I know is that Balsamo found this information. I'm glad that you both agree that this is an important reference.

If you get on an airplane in say Chicago, headed for NY, you turn off your cell phone and off you go. When you arrive in NY, you turn on your cell phone and see you have a message waiting. Was this message routed through a cell tower in Chicago? No, you would never receive it, nor be alerted that you have a message waiting. It is routed through a cell tower in NY. How does the cell network know where you are?

Although not exactly the same, but similar to how cell phones track your phone based on location, choosing the best cell towers to route messages to your phone, ACARS networks track the aircraft in flight and know where the aircraft is in order to route messages to the aircraft (or vice versa) through the best remote stations on the ground. When a message is sent from the ground or in flight, it is routed through a Central Processing System. This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location. Two types of flight tracking (or flight following) protocols are used for this process. Category A and B.

First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.

The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight path based on this flight tracking protocol, tracking the aircraft.

Cell phone call routing is a good analogy that a lot of people can identify with. It isn't really a good representation of what ACARS uses, but it certainly does provide some good imagery for people to wrap their minds around.

Why do you think that it isn't a good representation of what ACARS uses?

For the most part I agree with Balsamo's descriptions of the routing, with a couple of clarifications.

My first contention arises when he states "This system determines the best routing to a ground station based on the aircraft location." This isn't entirely accurate. The system attempts to predict the best routing decision based on a set of data it has available including the original flight plan, successfully sent tracker messages, and probably several other factors.

If I remember right, Valkyrie said that using flight plan data was the absolute last option that the system would use. The first option would be those tracker messages you refer to; and I believe it's the aircraft that decides which RGS stations to use, not ground control. If you believe otherwise, I could ask at PFT, but that's the way I think it works.

Remember, ACARS isn't like RADAR. It doesn't keep track of the exact location of the aircraft, it just keeps track of the stations which it believes would be best for routing messages through.

I agree that it doesn't keep track of the exact location of the aircraft. But it -does- keep track of what station(s) are getting the best signal and routes messages from this/these station(s).

December 5, 2011

Response to post #1564, Part 3 (last part)

My second contention arises when he is describing Category B protocol and states "The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course." This isn't continuous. This decision of which RGS station to use is made every few minutes. It is a small contention, but worthy of mention. The point is that the routing decisions are not continuous with either protocol.

The term continuous is used by the aviation industry to describe these messages. From the middle of page 6 from The Global Link, Issue #22:

***When an aircraft uses 10-minute tracker messages, CPS is continuously refreshed with new RGS information and always knows where to deliver an uplink message.***

The Global Link is dubbed "CNS/ATM News for the Aviation Industry". There is also another very important point, which is made in the aforementioned issue, near the beginning of page 6:

***

As mentioned, tracker messages are used for flight following. Each time a downlink message is received from an aircraft, the ARINC ACARS Central Processor System (CPS) is updated with the three best remote ground stations (RGSs) that received the downlink message.

***

There is every indication that Ballinger's message sent at 9:03am was received, at around the time that UA 175 hit the South Tower. There's also every indication that warning of potential hijackers message was received at 9:23am, 20 minutes after UA 175 allegedly hit the South Tower in New York. But even the message received at 8:59am, which -everyone- acknowledges was received gives the game away. This is because, at 9:03am, when 2 messages were sent, they were both routed through MDT. But the real kicker is that, whether or not the messages at 9:03am were received, it's quite clear that UA 175 -sent- a message between that time and 9:23am. Why? Because by 9:23am, ARINC's CPS (Central Processing System) had decided that the best place to route that message was through Pittsburgh. Let me quote another portion of the same Global Link issue to help explain why this is so, also on page 6:

***

Each time a downlink message is received from an aircraft, the ARINC ACARS Central Processor System (CPS) is updated with the three best remote ground stations (RGSs) that received the downlink message. When ARINC receives an uplink message from the airline computer, it first consults a table in CPS to determine which stations are most likely in contact with the aircraft. It tries these stations for message delivery.

***

Those messages that Rogers and Ballinger sent at 9:03am? Yes, they were from the airline computer, as were the others mentioned in Balsamo's article. Since the 9:03am messages were still being sent to MDT, the conclusion is inescapable; between 9:03am and 9:23am, the ARINC ACARS CPS had decided that one of the three best remote ground stations was Pittsburgh. Need I remind you of the reaction of the ARINC spokesperson when I asked her if a plane in New York would have had its message routed from Pittsburgh? Put bluntly, she was not impressed. Which makes sense, considering that she'd just told me a bit before that the maximum range of RGS stations is 200 miles and the distance between New York City and Pittsburgh is 317 miles (something I didn't know at the time).

• Category A is intended to be refreshed every 10 to 12 minutes automatically if the aircraft hasn't sent a downlink request within that time frame.

• Category B is intended to be refreshed every few minutes (3+?) if the aircraft hasn't sent a downlink request within that time frame.

That's right. One thing I'd like to know is which Category Network was UA 175 using. But while it would certainly lend a bit more weight if it was using a Category B Network, the points I'm making here would do fine with a Category A Network as well.

This is all explained to some degree in that Global Link issue that Cz brought to our attention previously.

Indeed :-). For those who aren't aware, the Global Link issue booN is referring to is, in fact, Global Link issue #22.

The reason for this type of flight tracking, Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.

What Balsamo is doing here is misrepresenting the hypothesis we've provided.

No, what Balsamo is doing here is attempting to explain to you and others who share your view why your hypothesis is mistaken.

First of all, nobody has ever claimed that the routing decision is based solely on the flight plan. You are familiar with what a strawman argument is, right? That's what Balsamo is presenting here.

I seem to recall some comments that suggested just that . But I don't want to go rummaging through all the posts, so I won't insist that this was so. And yes, I know what a strawman argument is. Moving on...

Secondly, the above descriptions of Category A and Category B protocols would normally account for what Balsamo presents here when an aircraft is diverted without updating its flight plan with the ACARS system.

Alight, there's something in your statement here that I think is wrong. I don't think ARINC's ACARS knows a thing about flight plans, although they may know where the aircraft is supposed to eventually land. My understanding is that when it comes to tracking the aircraft, it is tracking where the plane actually -is- regardless of the flight plan. And if it loses track of the aircraft, it simply attempts to send messages in the last place that was selected as the best place to have messages routed to it. So if UA 175's official flight path never got close to Pittsburgh, why would it ever have selected it as the best place to get its messages routed from?

Given enough time the aircraft would automatically establish a successful downlink and acquire a new set of RGS stations (or station, singular, as the case would apparently be when using Category B protocol) as preferred for routing.

If that aircraft wasn't given enough time to successfully downlink and acquire the new set of stations, as would be the case if that aircraft had crashed into the World Trade Center, the CPS would be left relying on the information it already had on hand for additional routing decisions; like the original flight plan, the most recent successful tracker downlink, etc...

Slow down there. I certainly agree that if UA 175 had crashed into the World Trade Center, the CPS would be left relying on the information it already had. But I do -not- agree that it would rely on the "original flight plan". Where do you get this notion? I -do- agree that it would rely on the most recent successful tracker link. Apparently, that last successful tracker link was Pittsburgh, which demolishes the argument that UA 175 was anywhere near Pittsburgh at 9:03am (even an aircraft takes some time, perhaps half an hour, to move from New York City to Pittsburgh). And as to your "etc.", I know of no other options, so please elaborate on this.

Some have further gone on to speculate that United Airlines Dispatchers routed the messages themselves based on flight planned route. Flight Tracking protocol as described renders this argument moot as the Dispatcher does not have control over ARINC routing of ACARS messages through remote ground stations. This type of premise is the equivalent of saying that when you call someone from your cell phone, you have the capability to choose which cell tower around the world you want your call to be routed. It's absurd. ...

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

Source: ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

I think we've firmly established that this idea is indeed absurd. Balsamo only points it out to try to make his argument look stronger than it actually is.

I think skyeagle believed this at one point in time. Perhaps he still does? Anyway, it would be great if no one believed this, as we both agree that it's absurd.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Scott G

December 5, 2011

It means the plane wasn't in New Yor City; it was near MDT (aka Harrisburg). The plane that hit the South Tower wasn't the real UA 175, tail number N612UA.

Then, where is the United Airlines, B-767-200, N612UA? That aircraft was destroyed in New York City on 9/11/2001. Passenger remains from that aircraft were also recovered and have been identified as passengers from United 175.

You may wish to read the following articles on the subject by Woody Box:
Two "Flight 175" taking off from Boston Logan: CONFIRMED

Flight 175 was duplicated: Threefold Confirmation

Woody Box is an active participant in Pilots for 9/11 Truth as well, and no one objected to me congratulating him on these 2 articles, suggesting that his work is well received there.

Scott, I have serious problems with both, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and Wood Box, and so do other pilots. First of all, American and United Airlines announced publically that they lost those aircraft and airlines must account for every aircraft in their inventories. Pilots at 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth,' should know better, but it seems that they have fallen victim to disinformation and misinformation.

Secondly, only a certain number of the B-767's and B757's were manufacturer by Boeing, so it is just a matter of calling upon the Process of Elimination to determine which aircraft crashed on 9/11 since all other B-767's and B-757's can be accounted for, leaving only those aircraft at the crash sites.

The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

Recommended Posts

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

skyeagle409

RaptorBites

Mario Lemieux

Posted Images

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Scott G

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Scott G

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Scott G

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Stundie

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Scott G

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

bubs49

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Scott G

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

booNyzarC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Czero 101

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Scott G

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Scott G

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Scott G

Link to comment

Share on other sites