The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack

[Q24]

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

I didn’t say it did

How do you feel about the certain fact that Pilots for 9/11 ‘Truth’ made a complete balls up of the recent ACARS issue? Because you see, if it wasn’t for Balsamo, that failure wouldn’t be leading us all on a wild goose chase and indirectly legitimising the official story right now. That is, the false facts which it has been demonstrated he pushes wouldn’t actually exist.

[booNyzarC]

Hi booNy,

Thanks for your post #1857.

I've now got the .CSV file up on my web site as well as version 3 of the text file which has more corrections.

Warren.

Thanks Warren, I've taken an initial look at this but haven't come up with anything definitive yet. I've been a bit distracted with the latest from Sergio too, so I've set the .CSV to the side for the moment.

He seems to think that the lack of CLE entries in the log for UAL93 is somehow significant. What he doesn't seem to take into account is how tremendously busy Cleveland Center is overall and that the CLE RGS was probably fully saturated by communications with all of the other aircraft in that airspace at the time.

This video showing the grounding of flights on that day is a pretty good indication of just how congested CLE airspace was, and on 911 I have no doubt that the volume of ACARS transmission attempts was exponentially higher than on a typical day as dispatch was scrambling to alert aircrews of possible dangers, redirect, and ground the flights.

I recommend going to

and watching it full screen for best visual effect.

Even before 911 ARINC was making plans to improve the available bandwidth for ACARS messaging because it was facing congestion problems. On this particular day every flight was communicating with this system, clogging up the lines so to speak.

The lack of CLE RGS entries in the UAL93 log is no mystery to me. We are only looking at the logs for 3 aircraft in that AWA PDF file. There were over 4000 flights in the air at that time nationwide, and as we can see from the above video that the traffic over CLE was extremely dense.

I just thought I'd mention that because Sergio seems to be under the impression that he's found something significant. Obviously without the full logs for all ACARS messaging with all aircraft on that day we can't know for sure, but in light of common sense it isn't that difficult to understand how the CLE RGS might have been clogged.

Cheers.

[skyeagle409]

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

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

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

I think that people place too much on a government conspiracy and neglect the owners of the aircraft that made up American 11, American 77, United 175, and United 93. Why not ask the owners of those aircraft what happened to them.

Their registration and serial numbers are:

American 11

Registration Number: N334AA

Serial Number: 22332

American 77

Registration Number: N644AA

Serial Number: 24602

United 175

Registration number: N612UA

Serial Number: 21873

United 93

Registration Number: N591UA

Serial Number: 28142

[wstutt]

Hi booNy,

Thanks Warren, I've taken an initial look at this but haven't come up with anything definitive yet. I've been a bit distracted with the latest from Sergio too, so I've set the .CSV to the side for the moment.

Fair enough. Let me know what you think of the .CSV file when you're ready and if there is any other columns you would like me to add to it.

I'll work on the OCR for AA11 and AA77 in the meantime. Do you think a combined text file of all three flights or separate text files for each flight would be best?

He seems to think that the lack of CLE entries in the log for UAL93 is somehow significant. What he doesn't seem to take into account is how tremendously busy Cleveland Center is overall and that the CLE RGS was probably fully saturated by communications with all of the other aircraft in that airspace at the time.

This video showing the grounding of flights on that day is a pretty good indication of just how congested CLE airspace was, and on 911 I have no doubt that the volume of ACARS transmission attempts was exponentially higher than on a typical day as dispatch was scrambling to alert aircrews of possible dangers, redirect, and ground the flights.

I recommend going to

and watching it full screen for best visual effect.

Even before 911 ARINC was making plans to improve the available bandwidth for ACARS messaging because it was facing congestion problems. On this particular day every flight was communicating with this system, clogging up the lines so to speak.

The lack of CLE RGS entries in the UAL93 log is no mystery to me. We are only looking at the logs for 3 aircraft in that AWA PDF file. There were over 4000 flights in the air at that time nationwide, and as we can see from the above video that the traffic over CLE was extremely dense.

I just thought I'd mention that because Sergio seems to be under the impression that he's found something significant. Obviously without the full logs for all ACARS messaging with all aircraft on that day we can't know for sure, but in light of common sense it isn't that difficult to understand how the CLE RGS might have been clogged.

Cheers.

It certainly would be great to have the full logs for all ACARS messages with all aircraft for that day so that we could establish a baseline to compare the hijacked flights against.

I notice that in the DLMSGs for UA93, a line starting with DT DDL xxx appears where xxx is the first three letters of the RGS station name where the first DLBLK for that message was received. That appears to me to be evidence against the RGS station names that appear in DLBLKs and ULBLKs being merely routers or having a different meaning from the RGS station names that appear in the GL TEIs in the ULMSGs. Winters said that Message #4 was received through PIT and we see DT DDL PIT in that DLMSG. Unfortunately Winters did not state which RGS station received Messages #9 where we also see DT DDL PIT when Message #8 has a GL TEI of CAK and Message #10 has a GL TEI of CLE.

Warren.

[bee]

aaaaahhhhhhhhhhgggggggggg I just OD-ed on acronyms........

[booNyzarC]

I also apparently need to clarify the content of this post a little better. I appreciate that Sergio pointed out a confusing section of it so that I can now add better context.

In my defense, when I initially wrote this post it was worded much better and I was just about to click the post button when my computer restarted itself without notice so I had to rewrite it in full after my computer came back up.

At any rate, Sergio has pointed out the following section in a recent post over on the PffffT forum as being wrong in his opinion:

The DSP (ARINC) makes use of the location downlinks referred to in previous documents to keep its internal routing tables updated, but the airline does not. The DSPs use of this is evident by the ARINC 620-4 documentation and from the PDF supplied by Warren Stutt. In fact, Warren's PDF shows us a perfect example of the Category A network protocol in action with each DLBLK that you see following each ULMSG and ULBLK reference. The aircraft's omnidirectional transmissions are picked up by every RGS within range and it appears as though the routing table sequences a priority based on signal strength of those transmissions; the RGS with the strongest signal received is assigned as the initial station for future uplinks. This routing table is dynamically updated with each downlink from the aircraft, just as the previously uncovered reference material has described, and this is distinct from the static information (i.e. the GL text element which I outlined in my previous post) which is supplied by the airline dispatch in each message sent to the DSP for delivery.

In particular he has pointed out that the above portion in bold is incorrect.

As a matter of fact, it is partially incorrect. Each RGS has a limited capacity because it does take time for these transmissions to be sent and received. It isn't a lot of time, but it takes long enough that a heavily trafficked area can experience congestion.

The omnidirectional transmission from the aircraft is sent in short bursts. Here is an example of the kind of bursts we are talking about.

There are many individual message blocks included in that video, both Uplink Blocks (ULBLKs) and Downlink Blocks (DLBLKs). They are very short overall, but if you have multiple aircraft over a busy hub like Cleveland Center, the activity will be much higher than is depicted in that video; especially if every dispatcher is trying to reach every aircrew in every aircraft to warn them about possible cockpit invasions and many aircrews are responding back for clarification/confirmation. There would have been no break in the noise on 911 over the busiest areas of the nation.

When you consider that the routing of ULBLKs is dependent on previous successfully received DLBLKs, it is not hard at all to conclude that the routing tables for UAL93 could very easily have been filled with less congested RGS locations than CLE.

But don't take my word for it, listen to what the controllers themselves have to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKCMG6KcGiI

Of particular note are the sections between 2:35 and 4:54, and starting from the 34:18 mark. There is no doubt whatsoever that ACARS was being taxed beyond capacity.

So yes, Sergio, I take back my poorly worded rewrite in the above post. They aren't actually received by every RGS location. They are only received by the stations which aren't busy sending and receiving other transmissions at the time.

Hope that helps to clarify.

Cheers.

[booNyzarC]

Hi booNy,

Fair enough. Let me know what you think of the .CSV file when you're ready and if there is any other columns you would like me to add to it.

I'll work on the OCR for AA11 and AA77 in the meantime. Do you think a combined text file of all three flights or separate text files for each flight would be best?

Sounds good Warren. From the looks of the log itself, it almost appears to be a query against multiple tables. That is probably why we see the discrepancies between field naming like stn, BepStnName, and Target Station. I work with databases quite a bit professionally and I have for a very long time. It isn't at all uncommon for relational databases to have slightly different field names representing essentially the same pieces of data in different tables. There are many ways that ARINC could have engineered the data structure for ACARS management on the back end and I could probably speculate for days about possible table/field structure as evidenced in the logs; but the point is that each individual field name is distinct for a reason. I mention this because you have combined these distinctions in your .CSV, apparently for the sake of simplicity, but it may actually add ambiguity by doing that. It may be better to keep the differentiations as they exist and create a separate column for each unique field name. I can easily parse it back out on my own per message type, but I thought I'd mention this to you and see what you thought.

Overall though, it is fantastic work getting it from a PDF to a .CSV in the first place, and so far I haven't found any errors in what I've seen. Kudos to you for a job well done!

It certainly would be great to have the full logs for all ACARS messages with all aircraft for that day so that we could establish a baseline to compare the hijacked flights against.

I agree. To really get a full analysis we would need a full data set. When there are gaps there is ambiguity, and it is in the ambiguity that conspiracy theorists thrive.

I notice that in the DLMSGs for UA93, a line starting with DT DDL xxx appears where xxx is the first three letters of the RGS station name where the first DLBLK for that message was received. That appears to me to be evidence against the RGS station names that appear in DLBLKs and ULBLKs being merely routers or having a different meaning from the RGS station names that appear in the GL TEIs in the ULMSGs. Winters said that Message #4 was received through PIT and we see DT DDL PIT in that DLMSG. Unfortunately Winters did not state which RGS station received Messages #9 where we also see DT DDL PIT when Message #8 has a GL TEI of CAK and Message #10 has a GL TEI of CLE.

Warren.

I'll look at this in a bit and get back to you. From memory, DDL is the DSP identifier code for ARINC. Other service providers have different identifier codes. I'll have to look at the rest later because I'm going to go cozy up to a fire and watch some TV for a while.

aaaaahhhhhhhhhhgggggggggg I just OD-ed on acronyms........

OB YLAAYKI TASMFAHTSTSITTCAPOI AHAGNAEAFSOEN

Edited December 25, 2011 by booNyzarC

[booNyzarC]

--

At any rate, Sergio has pointed out the following section in a recent post over on the PffffT forum as being wrong in his opinion:

--

I took another look at Sergio's post and he had some other things to say which I suppose should be responded to lest anyone be misled by his ramblings. Primarily he's talking about the distances between the aircraft and certain RGS locations at various points of the flight and correlating them to Warren's AWA PDF. He put a lot of time into it, complete with Google Earth screen captures. All of the distances he lists are under 200 nautical miles with one exception, which he outlines as such:

One last example should conclusively clarify this issue. There is one and only one reference to the Cleveland's RGS in the DLBLK blocks within the United 93 log history:

http://i42.tinypic.com/11qhc9g.jpg

(8). As we can see, it is referred as "CLEA2" and is contained within a DLBLK block showing 13:03:06 UTC as timestamp, that is 9:03:06 EDT. Coincidentally there is a radar hit from the DAN site in the 84 RADES Radar Data Spreadsheet file which shows exactly the same Zulu time, 13:03:06,600. The radar position reported is 40° 45' 09.713" N 076° 49' 05.680" W. One more time this allows us to plot the relevant position of the aircraft on a Google Earth map and calculate its distance from the target using GPS Visualizer. This is the result:

http://i44.tinypic.com/29ecrs.jpg

Again, the graphic and the distance data are self-explaining. According to the bizarre theory claimed by Stutt and others on UM, United 93 was able to detect the Cleveland ground station in a downlink at 9:03 EDT at a distance of 231.23 nm, which is well above the 200 nautical miles limit indicated by ARINC as maximum technical threshold for a successful ACARS transmission. But, for some incredible unknown reason, the CLE RGS was not close enough or its signal was not strong enough at 9:35 EDT to be reported in the "Stn=" field as the transmitting RGS while the aircraft was only 7 miles away and had literally flown over the Hopkins International airport one or two minutes before. This last example conclusively disproves that claim without ifs or buts. Either the theory is simply wrong or, if it is true, then it is obvious that the ARINC logs released through FOIA were manipulated and therefore are neither genuine or trusted nor can be positively used as basis for whatever claim or theory. This conclusion may also be expressed with other words: either the ARINC logs released though FOIA are fake or, if genuine, then the official version is fake and United 93 never made its U-turn over Cleveland, but kept on flying somewhere, maybe in circles, over the Pittsburgh's remote ground station (PIT) for almost one hour.

And here we have some of the hand waving that I've been expecting.

231.23 nautical miles is not beyond the reach of ACARS messaging. I've provided documentation which clearly states this and the VHF/UHF line of sight calculator that Balsamo himself shared confirms this.

The documentation mentioned, SIGNAL-IN-SPACE MINIMUM AVIATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (MASPS) FOR ADVANCED VHF DIGITAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY WITH DIGITAL VOICE TECHNIQUES (masps.pdf), states on page 48:

The propagation characteristics of the VHF band restrict transmission

and reception to essentially line-of-sight conditions. The maximum line of-

sight range for an enroute aircraft at an altitude of 30,000 feet is about

250 nautical miles. The radio range decreases at lower altitudes to a

strictly localized coverage when the aircraft is on the ground.

As if that isn't enough in itself, take a look at Rob's calculator link. Plug anything between 26800 and 27000 feet into the first box and you'll get 232 nautical miles. If the aircraft were below these altitudes then Sergio's statements might actually have some merit. Now plug 35000 feet into the calculator and find the VHF range jump up to 265 nm. I believe the aircraft was actually higher than 35000 feet at that moment, but you get the picture.

Sergio's hand waving doesn't accomplish anything here and it certainly doesn't disprove the ARINC documentation itself.

Why are Sergio and Balsamo referring to the documentation as speculation and theory? They keep side stepping from the main issue.

Every reference to an RGS station in that first FOIA printout is a prediction supplied by the airline and would only be used if ARINC had no locational information in their internal routing tables for the aircraft. There is no escaping this fact. It is not speculation. It is not hypothesis. It is not theory. It is FACT.

Merry Christmas all!

[Babe Ruth]

I didn’t say it did

How do you feel about the certain fact that Pilots for 9/11 ‘Truth’ made a complete balls up of the recent ACARS issue? Because you see, if it wasn’t for Balsamo, that failure wouldn’t be leading us all on a wild goose chase and indirectly legitimising the official story right now. That is, the false facts which it has been demonstrated he pushes wouldn’t actually exist.

Q

I am still undecided on the ACARS controversy.

The problem is that the vast bulk of the circumstantial evidence, forget ACARS for the moment, works against the official story.

There are many things that contradict that story, and perhaps the most egregious are the molten pools of steel at WTC, and the complete absence of wreckage consistent with a 757 at either the Pentagon or at Shanksville.

If it turns out that ACARS also contradicts the official story, well it's just one more nail in the coffin.

[Babe Ruth]

Skyeagle

I agree with your point about the 2 airlines, American and United, and their complicity in the events of the day.

In my opinion, it was not like the government held a meeting somewhere and planned the events of the day, no, not at all.

Those men behind the scenes, some in the government and some in industry and of course some in the Pentagon, planned this. Many ordinary rank and file government employees, such as many FAA radar controllers, were simply unwitting pawns in a well planned chess game.

Men that knew the system intimately manipulated it to achieve their goals.

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle

I agree with your point about the 2 airlines, American and United, and their complicity in the events of the day.

In my opinion, it was not like the government held a meeting somewhere and planned the events of the day, no, not at all.

Those men behind the scenes, some in the government and some in industry and of course some in the Pentagon, planned this. Many ordinary rank and file government employees, such as many FAA radar controllers, were simply unwitting pawns in a well planned chess game.

Men that knew the system intimately manipulated it to achieve their goals.

Why would the government want to commit such despicable acts against its own citizens? Such acts could easily be uncovered and revealed and subject thousands of people to the death penalty. As of today, there is not a shred of evidence of a government conspiracy after more than 10 years.

[skyeagle409]

Q

I am still undecided on the ACARS controversy.

The problem is that the vast bulk of the circumstantial evidence, forget ACARS for the moment, works against the official story.

No it does not. The conspiracy folks have confused themselves into thinking there is a government conspiracy.

There are many things that contradict that story, and perhaps the most egregious are the molten pools of steel at WTC,...

I have to correct you on that. Each aircraft consist of thousands of pounds of aluminum that melts at a lower temperature than ordinary steel. I guess the conspiracy folks didn't know that aluminum has a lower melting point than steel.

and the complete absence of wreckage consistent with a 757 at either the Pentagon or at Shanksville.

On the contrary, I have identified materials as those from the B-757, but apparenty, the conspiracy folks are not familiar with aircraft parts.

If it turns out that ACARS also contradicts the official story, well it's just one more nail in the coffin.

Actually, American and United Airlines announced the loss of United 175, United 93, American 11, and American 77, which should have told the conspiracy folks that they were incorrect in regards to ACARS, and there are no radar tracking data nor ATC communications placing those aircraft where the conspiracy folks have claimed.

Edited December 25, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Czero 101]

There are many things that contradict that story, and perhaps the most egregious are the molten pools of steel at WTC, and the complete absence of wreckage consistent with a 757 at either the Pentagon or at Shanksville.

So what exactly is your explanation for these pieces of wreckage / debris found at the Shanksville site

And these found at the Pentagon

Since there is a limit to how many images one can add to an individual post, this will be continued in the next message...

Cz

Edited December 25, 2011 by Czero 101

[Czero 101]

Continued from previous:

More Pentagon debris images:

Perhaps you can explain to us why they are "inconsistent with a 757" and just how exactly you came to that conclusion...

Cz

[Djeminy]

Continued from previous:

More Pentagon debris images:

Perhaps you can explain to us why they are "inconsistent with a 757" and just how exactly you came to that conclusion...

Cz

You must be very young Czero.

This has been debated endlessly since the last 8 years on various forums.

The 'goodies' won every time.

It can now be documented with absolute certainty that the piece of fuselage found on the roof

of WTC5 has been planted there, and even part of it photo-shopped with paint added.

Please bring your bucket and your shovel to the crash site in shanksville and start digging.

According to the OS, 95% of the aircraft should still be down there, in the crater somewhere!

The parts on the pentacon lawn have obviously been planted.

The airplane wheel/tyre embedded in a small section of the steel wall structure from one of the

towers, is so ridiculous that no comment is needed.

Think again my friend, and come over to the 'good' side, the sooner the better!

Cheers

[Djeminy]

Why would the government want to commit such despicable acts against its own citizens? Such acts could easily be uncovered and revealed and subject thousands of people to the death penalty. As of today, there is not a shred of evidence of a government conspiracy after more than 10 years.

Your government has murdered, maimed and cripled an unknown amount of women and children,

the frail and the elderly, fathers and sons, that can be counted in the hundreds upon

hundreds of thousands. They have send nearly 5000 of their young citizens to die horrible

deaths in a foreign land, not to mention the tens of thousands who have been crippled for

life, either physically or mentally, in a war of aggression even started on false premisses.

Wars of aggression can never ever be justified. "The aggressor" will always carry the full

responsibility for all the senseless deaths that have been committed. No ifs or buts.

This is war crimes committed with an unbelievable callousness, and with total disregards for

human Life.

And this is what you support dear skyeagle. The day of reckoning will come to you too, old

chap!

Cheers

[skyeagle409]

"The aggressor" will always carry the full responsibility for all the senseless deaths that have been committed. No ifs or buts.

You are correct and that is why Bin Laden, Saddam, Milosevic, and Gaddafi are now history.

Edited December 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

You must be very young Czero.

This has been debated endlessly since the last 8 years on various forums.

The 'goodies' won every time.

It can now be documented with absolute certainty that the piece of fuselage found on the roof

of WTC5 has been planted there, and even part of it photo-shopped with paint added.

The evidence points only to foreign terrorist.

Edited December 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

The parts on the pentacon lawn have obviously been planted.

Of course the parts were planted on the grounds of the Pentagon by American 77 because that is where American 77 had crashed..

Edited December 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Djeminy]

As if that isn't enough in itself, take a look at Rob's calculator link. Plug anything between 26800 and 27000 feet into the first box and you'll get 232 nautical miles. If the aircraft were below these altitudes then Sergio's statements might actually have some merit. Now plug 35000 feet into the calculator and find the VHF range jump up to 265 nm. I believe the aircraft was actually higher than 35000 feet at that moment, but you get the picture.

Merry Christmas all!

Hi Crazynoob,

i'm but a simple layman trying to find out the Truth about the ACARS problem!

As i understand it so far, then you're a OS supporter and thus believe that

hi-jackers flew the airplanes.

Why then do you 'believe' that the plane 'flew higher than 35000 feet at that

moment', which should be above cruising height IIRC!

This doesn't seem to make sense, so could you please explain why you 'believe'

this to be the case?

Cheers

[Karlis]

Djeminy and Skyeagle, please argue the points of the topic -- not each other.

Karlis -- moderator team member

[Wandering]

Why would the government want to commit such despicable acts against its own citizens? Such acts could easily be uncovered and revealed and subject thousands of people to the death penalty

Is this before or after the American government sent fluffy unicorns that shoot rainbows out of their **** to all their allied nations as thanks for supporting the 'war on terror'?

Seriously skyeagle, you must be trolling. I honestly don't even know how to respond to a statement like that. Maybe you should do some history research...

[Q24]

Q

I am still undecided on the ACARS controversy.

The UAL record of ACARS messages was presented by PffffffffffffffffT as evidence of the RGS actually used.

That has proven to be a false representation from the outset - like most of their work.

What’s to be undecided about?

There are many things that contradict that story, and perhaps the most egregious are the molten pools of steel at WTC, and the complete absence of wreckage consistent with a 757 at either the Pentagon or at Shanksville.

I agree that molten steel at the WTC is a great point – one that we can support all day with the multitude of physical evidence and witness accounts on record. It forces anyone who opposes it to declare numerous on-site workers incorrect, formulate coincidental theory to explain and further rail against common sense, e.g. denial of the suggestion that molten metal dripping from the end of a steel beam is in likelihood steel! This all has the official theory on the defensive, scrambling for answers that can never be proven, and by extension, the apparent fact of molten steel at the WTC can never be disproven.

When however anyone might claim a, “complete absence of wreckage consistent with a 757 at either the Pentagon or at Shanksville”… damn you just shot yourself in the foot. There is an extensive volume of such evidence. And you can be sure the official theory will go on the attack with it, on the surface legitimising the whole of that half-truth story.

If we don’t stick to the strong points then credibility of 9/11 truth as a whole is dragged down - in fact can be destroyed by association to one failure alone. Think anyone will see you as objective on molten steel if they justifiably feel led up the garden path one too many times before?

[wstutt]

This post is in response to two points raised by Sergio at P4T

(7). I marked the most significant parts of the above claim in bold. The first one is "but the aircraft does not", which means that the targeted station reported in the ULMSG blocks is never dynamically updated by the CPS based on the actual positional data and always designates the expected RGS based on the flight plan. This claim is simply wrong, as I spotted several examples that flatly prove the contrary, however I will analyze them in a separate post in the next few days. For the purposes of the current analysis it is more important to focus on the second claim marked in bold: "The aircraft's omnidirectional transmissions are picked up by every RGS within range". So, if this theory is true, then we would expect to see "CLEXX", "CAKXX" and other ground stations within range at 9:35 EDT in the "BEPStnName =" references for Message #10. Now let's take a look at what is actually reported in the "BEPStnName =" fields in the above screenshot taken from the ARINC logs. The first DLBLK reports "BepStnName = YYZA6", the second DLBLK reports "BepStnName = YYZB6", the third DLBLK reports "BepStnName = YYZC6", the fourth DLBLK reports "BepStnName = PITA6", finally the fifth DLBLK reports "BepStnName = HTSA6".

Again, I reported the relevant stations on a Google Earth map and calculated their distance from the aircraft at 9:35 EDT with GPS Visualizer. This is the result:

(IMG:http://i39.tinypic.com/10zpws8.jpg)

United 93 at 9:35 EDT Distance (in nm)

YYZ RGS (see red pointer D): 175.50 nm

HTS RGS (see red pointer E): 180.08 nm

TOL RGS (see red pointer F): 83.696 nm

FWA RGS (see red pointer G): 147.18 nm

DTW RGS (see red pointer H): 81.191 nm

CMH RGS (see red pointer I): 90.302 nm

So, let's take a look again at the screenshot from the ARINC logs and let's try to draw some conclusions after looking at the distances calculated by GPS Visualizer reported on the above map. The first three DLBLK blocks in Message #10 contain references to the Toronto ground station (YYZ). At 9:35 EDT the distance between the radar position of United 93 and the Toronto RGS was 175.50 nm (!!). The fourth DLBLK block contains a reference to PITC6. As we have seen, at that time the distance from Pittsburgh's RGS was 94.394 nm. Finally, the fifth DLBLK block reports a reference to Huntington (HTS), which at 9:35 EDT was at a distance of 180.08 nm.

So, according to the theory supported by Stutt and others, who apparently base their claim on the DLBLK blocks shown within the ARINC logs, the United 93's onboard ACARS MU not only completely ignored very close stations such as CLE (see pointer , who was at only 7.4020 nm, and CAK, who was at a distance of only 35.455 nm (see pointer C). It also ignored relatively close RGS' such as DTW (see pointer H) which was at 81.191 nm, TOL (see pointer F) which was at 83.696 nm, CMH (see pointer I) which was at 90.302 nm and finally FWA (see pointer G) which was at 147.18 nm, but, for some incredible reason, was able to detect YYZ at 175.50 nm and HTS at 180.08 nm. Look at the same screenshot shown above with a zoom on the aircraft position:

(IMG:http://i39.tinypic.com/2uz6t8g.jpg)

It is obvious that this theory does not add up at all. The radar data and the distances calculated by GPS Visualizer are self-explaining and prove unquestionably that such a claim has no real technical or scientific basis, no matter how many screenshots from the ARINC specifications may be used as reference.

The reason that some RGS stations did not receive ACARS messages from or transmit ACARS messages to UA93 while RGS stations much further away did do so is that not all RGS stations transmit and receive at all the frequencies used to carry ACARS message traffic. It has become evident to me that BepStnName and Stn values in the ACARS message log (1369 kB PDF) such as EWRB5 are transceiver names located at the RGS station with the first three letters of the transceiver name so for example the transceiver EWRB5 is located at the EWR RGS station. Each transceiver at an RGS station only works on one particular fixed frequency. The transceiver on UA93 however could be switched to different frequencies. A transceiver at an RGS station could only successfully communicate with UA93 if the transceiver on UA93 was switched to the same frequency as the one used by the transceiver at the RGS station.

Look at this example of an ACARS message from the bottom of this web page:

M=06 ADDR= OY-MDS TA=5 ML=:; B=131125

This is a data transceiver auto tune message ( :; ) from ground station 06 commanding the ACARS transceiver of aircraft OY-MDS to change its frequency to 131.125 MHz. At the same time acknowledgement is given for the aircraft's downlink block 5.

In the ACARS message log we see the following ULBLKs with Message Labels of :;

Note the :; in the Message Text of each row. Each row has details from an auto tune ULBLK. The BEPts column is the Zulu time when the auto tune ULBLK was processed by ARINC. Note that the second to fourth rows have the same Message Text. This is because the auto tune ULBLK was transmitted three times by the EWRB4 transceiver since an acknowledgement DLBLK was not received the first two times.

It has become evident to me that the frequency used by the transceiver on UA93 is changed to the new frequency given in the auto tune ULBLK after it has transmitted the acknowledgement DLBLK for the auto tune message on the old frequency. The acknowledgement DLBLKs in the ACARS Message log can have BEPts times up to three seconds after the BEPts time of the auto tune ULBLK due to the time required to transmit, receive and process the ACARS messages. The following image is taken from this file (23kB PDF) which shows the earliest and latest BEPts in the ACARS message log for each RGS station transceiver. It is sorted in order of earliest BEPts:

Note that for each transceiver, the earliest BEPts is no earlier than the time of one auto tune ULBLK that UA93 acknowledged and the latest BEPts is no later than three seconds after the next auto tune ULBLK that UA93 acknowledged. From the ACARS message log and the above information it can be deduced that:

The transceivers BWIB6, YYZB6, IADC6, LGAC6, YYZC6, BWIA6, LGAA6, SYRA6, ORFA6, IADA6, PITC6, CRWA6, DTWB6, HTSA6, DTWA6, YYZA6, PITA6, CVGA6, CVGB6 and ORDA6 operate at a frequency of 136.800MHz

The transceivers JFKB2, BUFB2, BWIB2, ROCA2, BDLA2, YYZB2, PHLC2, YYZC2, PITC2, ALBA2, RICA2, SWFA2, ABEA2, ACYA2, SYRA2, AVPA2, DCAA2, EWRA2, BWIA2, CAKA2, HPNA2 and CLEA2 operate at a frequency of 130.025MHz

The transceivers JFKB4, EWRB4, EWRA4, JFKA4, LGAA4, LGAC4, DCAA4 and DCAB4 operate at a frequency of 131.125MHz

The transceivers EWRB5, EWRA5 and LGAA5 operate at a frequency other than the three listed above.

Another point raised by Sergio is also now explained:

One last example should conclusively clarify this issue. There is one and only one reference to the Cleveland's RGS in the DLBLK blocks within the United 93 log history:

(IMG:http://i42.tinypic.com/11qhc9g.jpg)

(8). As we can see, it is referred as "CLEA2" and is contained within a DLBLK block showing 13:03:06 UTC as timestamp, that is 9:03:06 EDT. Coincidentally there is a radar hit from the DAN site in the 84 RADES Radar Data Spreadsheet file which shows exactly the same Zulu time, 13:03:06,600. The radar position reported is 40° 45' 09.713" N 076° 49' 05.680" W. One more time this allows us to plot the relevant position of the aircraft on a Google Earth map and calculate its distance from the target using GPS Visualizer. This is the result:

(IMG:http://i44.tinypic.com/29ecrs.jpg)

Again, the graphic and the distance data are self-explaining. According to the bizarre theory claimed by Stutt and others on UM, United 93 was able to detect the Cleveland ground station in a downlink at 9:03 EDT at a distance of 231.23 nm, which is well above the 200 nautical miles limit indicated by ARINC as maximum technical threshold for a successful ACARS transmission. But, for some incredible unknown reason, the CLE RGS was not close enough or its signal was not strong enough at 9:35 EDT to be reported in the "Stn=" field as the transmitting RGS while the aircraft was only 7 miles away and had literally flown over the Hopkins International airport one or two minutes before. This last example conclusively disproves that claim without ifs or buts. Either the theory is simply wrong or, if it is true, then it is obvious that the ARINC logs released through FOIA were manipulated and therefore are neither genuine or trusted nor can be positively used as basis for whatever claim or theory. This conclusion may also be expressed with other words: either the ARINC logs released though FOIA are fake or, if genuine, then the official version is fake and United 93 never made its U-turn over Cleveland, but kept on flying somewhere, maybe in circles, over the Pittsburgh's remote ground station (PIT) for almost one hour.

The CLEA2 (at Cleveland) transceiver was operating at a frequency of 130.025MHz and was able to receive a DLBLK from UA93 at 13:03:06 UTC since the transceiver on UA93 was tuned to that frequency at that time. The transceiver on UA93 was then tuned to 136.800MHz and remained on this frequency for the remainder of the flight and therefore the CLEA2 transceiver was unable to communicate with UA93 even when it was flying much closer to the transceiver. The PITC6 (Pittsburgh) transceiver was however operating at 136.800MHz and could therefore communicate with UA93 for the remainder of the flight.

Warren.

[booNyzarC]

Sergio just keeps on hand waving and chasing after a non-argument over there.

Apparently someone on the Unexplained Mysteries' forum tried to address the conclusions I presented at post #156.

I didn't just try Sergio, I succeeded.

Your false conclusions have no basis in reality.

And here we have some of the hand waving that I've been expecting.

231.23 nautical miles is not beyond the reach of ACARS messaging. I've provided documentation which clearly states this and the VHF/UHF line of sight calculator that Balsamo himself shared confirms this.

The documentation mentioned, SIGNAL-IN-SPACE MINIMUM AVIATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (MASPS) FOR ADVANCED VHF DIGITAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY WITH DIGITAL VOICE TECHNIQUES (masps.pdf), states on page 48:

The propagation characteristics of the VHF band restrict transmission

and reception to essentially line-of-sight conditions. The maximum line of-

sight range for an enroute aircraft at an altitude of 30,000 feet is about

250 nautical miles. The radio range decreases at lower altitudes to a

strictly localized coverage when the aircraft is on the ground.

As if that isn't enough in itself, take a look at Rob's calculator link. Plug anything between 26800 and 27000 feet into the first box and you'll get 232 nautical miles. If the aircraft were below these altitudes then Sergio's statements might actually have some merit. Now plug 35000 feet into the calculator and find the VHF range jump up to 265 nm. I believe the aircraft was actually higher than 35000 feet at that moment, but you get the picture.

False.

Truth is that the transmission lines and, in fact, the essential grounding terminations on most airliners are degraded over time, which in fact increases the insertion losses between the antenna and the rack on the plane by (using signal generators and power meters) as much as 6 db more than normal. That's why ARINC specifically states "up to 200 nm" at FL 29 as maximum range. What happens in reality is that, due to overall crappy maintenance and corrosion on aircraft skins, with the bonding so questionable for the transmission line shield integrity at the antenna connector being so generally not optimal, it's a stretch to really get that 200 miles very often except with very new aircraft or exceptionally well maintained airplanes. Cyclical maintenance schedules do not even touch routine corrosion prevention on these antenna grounding plates unless the plane is removed from service and then completely overhauled. Bottom line: a range of 180 nm at best.

What do you think happens to the signal when it reaches the 200 nm range? Do you think it stops?

It doesn't stop Sergio, the signal just degrades. That doesn't mean that the signal can't reach beyond the 200 nm range, just that the best signal strength will be found within that range.

But now let's take a closer look at his quote. The title of the document is "SIGNAL-IN-SPACE MINIMUM AVIATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (MASPS) FOR ADVANCED VHF DIGITAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY WITH DIGITAL VOICE TECHNIQUES" and is available for download here. I will quote now the complete paragraph as it is (p. 48-49):

The propagation characteristics of the VHF band restrict transmission

and reception to essentially line-of-sight conditions. The maximum line of-

sight range for an enroute aircraft at an altitude of 30,000 feet is about

250 nautical miles. The radio range decreases at lower altitudes to a

strictly localized coverage when the aircraft is on the ground. The

normal index of refraction of the atmosphere is greater than unity, which

extends the possible range of VHF transmissions most of the time.

However, the refractivity varies widely, resulting in a significantly lower

reliability of extended-range communications. The VHF radio channel is

subject to slow and fast fading due to time varying multipath, obstruction

of the radio line of sight, and changes in atmospheric conditions. The

predominantly line-of-sight nature of VHF radio limits its use for airground

and ground-air communications to airspace that can be served by

land-based stations. Thus, coverage is limited to reasonably accessible

over-land areas. Air-to-air communication is possible in any airspace,

subject to the constraints of line-of-sight, transmitter effective radiated

power, and receiver subsystem sensitivity.

The first part not marked in bold is the part the guy on UM has quoted in his post. The second part marked in bold is what he knowingly omitted. And why did he omit it? Because, if read in its entirety, the above paragraph clearly proves the contrary of what intended by the poster.

Excuse me? The above paragraph in full does no such thing. I quoted the smaller section alone because it clearly states The maximum line of-sight range for an enroute aircraft at an altitude of 30,000 feet is about 250 nautical miles. The rest of the paragraph doesn't prove the contrary of it's own statement. Your suggestion that it does is absurd.

While 250 nm is to be considered as the max. technical line of-sight range at an altitude of 30,000 ft, in reality ground-air communications are limited by physical constraints such as "transmitter effective radiated power, and receiver subsystem sensitivity". All this is clearly described in the document quoted, but obviously the poster removed this essential information from his original quote because the resulting meaning would be completely different than the intended. As a matter of fact, the document quoted by the guy completely confirms (one more time) why ARINC only guarantees deliveries "up to 200 nm", whereas "up to 200 nm" is to be interpreted in its simple, literal meaning and not as a distance that one can personally adapt based on circumstances or can fit into a theory that has been already and conclusively proven as wrong for many other reasons.

Why do you suppose ARINC guarantees deliveries "up to 200 nm"?

Again, what exactly do you think happens to the signal when it reaches 200 nm? Does it stop?

No, of course it doesn't stop. It keeps going. Do you understand what line-of-sight means Sergio?

As far as atmospheric conditions go, they don't get much better than they were on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Your whole argument is absurd and you're chasing after an imaginary piece of nothing.

Finally, if the poster insists that the VHF range can jump up to 265 nm when an aircraft is flying at 35 FL using an online calculator as best evidence for this claim, then I inform him that United 93 (see my post above about in Message #11) dropped a DLBLK block containing "ORDA6" in the "BepStnName =" at 9:40 EDT, while the distance from the Chicago airport was 278.46 nm. Also, in the second DLBLK block within the same message there is a reference to IADC6. Dulles airport at 9:40 EDT was 238.05 nm from United 93!

Again, what exactly do you think happens to the signal when it reaches 200 nm? Does it stop?

No, of course it doesn't stop. It keeps going. Do you understand what line-of-sight means Sergio?

Anyway, if the poster on UM is really confident about the theory he's claiming, then I challenge him to contact an ARINC professional and present it. I challenge him to prove that an aircraft could not see a station at only 7 miles at 9:35 EDT or two stations at only 20 miles at 9:40 EDT, but was able to see stations at 238.05 nm and 278.46 nm as "RGS with the strongest signal". Until then I will keep on thinking that his claim is completely unfounded.

The only unfounded claims around here are the ones that you and Balsamo are touting over there in your sheltered little wonder land where any dissenting voice is promptly muzzled, ridiculed, and abused. Show me where I claimed that RGS locations at such distances had the strongest signal. I'll help you with that; I didn't make such a claim. On the contrary, those signals appeared to be the weakest if the corresponding SSV (Signal Strength Value perhaps?) entries represent what I believe they most likely do.

I've addressed why CLE may not have received the transmissions in case you missed it; congestion. Look again at the mass of aircraft that were over Cleveland airspace during the period in question:

This is one of the busiest hubs in the continental United States and on that morning every dispatcher was messaging every aircraft to warn them of possible cockpit invasion, divert the flights, etc...

Feel free to keep chasing after nothing if you'd like. Upload all the Google Earth images you want and draw lines from RGS locations to the aircraft. They still don't amount to anything in this non-argument.

The ACARS CONFIRMS myth has been debunked.

Deal with it.