Again, how do these messages fit into your hypothesis about the events of 9/11? Especially since elsewhere you are discussing the collapse initiation of the WTC towers? What ties these messages to the buildings' collapse initiation?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
ACARS messages to UA175 and UA93
- Thread starter Simplicissimus
- Start date
Again, how do these messages fit into your hypothesis about the events of 9/11? Especially since elsewhere you are discussing the collapse initiation of the WTC towers? What ties these messages to the buildings' collapse initiation?
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Here's a good description of the ACARS system. No explicit mention of automatic acknowledgment (ACK) is mentioned. In my experience with radio and life-critical messaging, I'd expect no automatic acknowledgment since an auto ACK doesn't tell the sender that the recipient has actually read the message.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_Communications_Addressing_and_Reporting_System#How_it_works
Here is the specification for ACARS messaging. Since nothing about ACARS ACK changes anything about how the FAA and NORAD responded on 9/11, I'm not going to waste my time reading any of it.
It's your ball. Learn and tell us what you find.
Yet again, from this post...
All ACARS documentation and specification details I've found include acknowledgement retry descriptions...
...and ACARS message transmission really does get described as a packet relay-type transmission protocol.
Still not definitive though.
So, Definitive ACARS acknowledgement mechanism info anyone ? Anyone ?
All ACARS documentation and specification details I've found include acknowledgement retry descriptions...
...and ACARS message transmission really does get described as a packet relay-type transmission protocol.
Still not definitive though.
So, Definitive ACARS acknowledgement mechanism info anyone ? Anyone ?
How does this fit with your CD fantasy? What is the ACARS problem due to your lack of knowledge mean?
...
Not a darn thing for 911; your paranoid conspiracy theories are due to lack of knowledge. Woodybox is unable to make rational conclusions and you fall for it. Your anomalies on 911 are due to your own lack of knowledge.
Your question is flawed since the messages were sent after Flight 93 impacted; there is no way to receive a message when the aircraft system is destroyed.
If you need to get a message to a plane and you want acknowledgment and it is super important!!! You call ATC and make arrangements for acknowledgment and communication if ACARS fails. On 911 Flight 93 was in the hands of the murderers you apologize for with lies about CD and other anomalies you have due to ignorance. 2+2=4 is an anomaly for some until they gain knowledge and experience in math. No wonder NIST ignores 911 truth engineering complaints, 911 truth flying complaints are the same.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Last edited:
What is it that Mr. T says...oh yeah...I pity the fool.
My query regarding the ACARS messages relates to this one...
...for Flight 175, not Flight 93, but your point re post-destruction messaging is the point indeed.
You're far too focussed upon so-called *twoofer-baiting*. Doesn't even touch the sides I'm afraid. I wouldn't waste your time.
All information I've found on the ACARS system repeatedly mentions *the ACARS guaranteed reliable positive acknowledge protocol in use*, so I'm after definitive information about the acknowledgement mechanism.
With that information, any apparent *anomoly* could be explained. Until that information does turn up, then the *anomoly* just won't go away. In everyones best interests to find it. I'll keep looking.
Not interested in any other *banter* on this thread other than the information I'm after.
Anyone...?
I don't call my mother at her house when she is sceduled to be at my brothers house I call her at my brothers house. If she was sick and did not go to his house I will not get my message to her. The messages are sent to the ground station which ACARS thinks the Flight is near, within 200 miles or less.
woodybox is an idiot; Flight 175 was not duplicated, woodybox is insane.
You are using FBI notes to make up stupid! The FBI notes are NOTES!!!! They are not really true facts! The statement "However all of the messages were rejected indicating the aircraft did not receive them." p. 57", could mean all the messages!!! Or a subset of the messages the FBI guy was talking to the guy about.
The messages after flight 93 crashed were not rejected, they were not recieved, they were just sent. Since Flight 93 was destroyed at a known time when terrorists flew the jet by hand into the ground, we know the messages after that time were not recived by systems on Flight 93.
Flight 175 should have been near Harrisburg, within 100 to 200 miles but the murderers took it! WAIT! Flight 175 was close enough if it was high enough to recieve a message from Harrisburg! VHF is line of sight and the signal can be usable at 200 miles!!! Harriburg to NYC is 153 miles, VHF can go 200 NM, the 6000 foot miles which are really 6067 or so feet, a little bigger than the 5280 feet in the miles. Gee, only 133 NM from harrisburg to NYC; so Flight 175 ACARS system could take a message from Harrisburg. There goes that anomoly. NEXT
This nonsense! How stupid. Later believed to be Flight 175? lol, only an idiot does not know Flight 175 impacted the WTC tower. Woodybox is an idiot. RADAR proves each plane's identification on 911 without any other information. RADAR, multiple RADARs tracked all the flights all day long. If 911 truth can't handle RADAR as a reality based fact then they deserve to be called brain-dead idiots (acting like on 911 issues).
Listen carefully. They send the messages to the nearest ground station where the plane is suppose to be based on the flight plan. Have you been involved in aircraft operations ever? I only have 37 years experience in flying operations, and I don't need it to understand Woodybox makes up lies based on ignorance.
There has been people discussing ACARS in this thread trying to explain to you there are no anomolies in the messages. They explained why the messages were routed to ground stations the way they were; I bet the ACARS system will and has changed since 911 due to changes in technology. The reason the system is based on VHF radios, the airliners have them on board, it is important to have 2 or 3 VHF radios as back up to your primary radio so you can talk to ATC. Using VHF radios is a known system and it does not interfer with navigation equiptment. You don't want unknown system problems interfeareing in the electromagnetic spectum if you are flying on intruments; the systems cleared for flight are the best systems to use for ACARS since they are already cleared.
The rejected messages? The aircraft rejected some messages? What does it mean? Oh no!!! lol, this rejected message stuff sounds kind of dumb. Woodybox makes up analogies and makes up more Flight 175s. Good for him, so stupid he can form rational conclusions when given the reality based conclusions and all the evidence. If Woodybox was the investigator on a murder, hundreds of people who did not do it would be in jail and the guys who did it would never be found even if you gave woodybox the evidence on the people who did it. How can someone be that stupid and make a web page or type? ..., rational thinking is not required for either.
The anomaly you guys have problems with is up-link routing decisions. This proprietary but for a minimum charge of 4,000, and 4,000 dollar an hour I will work on this engineering problem as soon as the money is transfered. Knowledge is power, and it makes money for those who wasted 6 to 8 years in school and another 36 years wasted gaining experience. Up-link (uplink) routing decisions; bet it is automated and has an algorithm; I wonder if I could use Kalman filter to tweak the system.
femr2, has CD delusion knowledge blocking algorithm syndrome.
Last edited:
You don't have a point! You have no question. There is no anomaly after the plane crashes; only in CD delusional altered minds, CTers.What is it that Mr. T says...oh yeah...I pity the fool.
My query regarding the ACARS messages relates to this one...
...for Flight 175, not Flight 93, but your point re post-destruction messaging is the point indeed.
You're far too focussed upon so-called *twoofer-baiting*. Doesn't even touch the sides I'm afraid. I wouldn't waste your time.
All information I've found on the ACARS system repeatedly mentions *the ACARS guaranteed reliable positive acknowledge protocol in use*, so I'm after definitive information about the acknowledgement mechanism.
With that information, any apparent *anomoly* could be explained. Until that information does turn up, then the *anomoly* just won't go away. In everyones best interests to find it. I'll keep looking.
Not interested in any other *banter* on this thread other than the information I'm after.
Anyone...?
There is an algorithm for uplink message routing which picks what VHF station to route messages to. I will get the information on the algorithm, it will cost you my standard 4,000 USDOL min fee for engineering consulting, plus 4,000 dollars an hour, plus expenses.
Flying operations or engineering projects ? You would'a thought aeronautical would'a cropped up in there somewhere eh ? Aircraft ? Even Flight. Flying ? Okay.beachnut said:
And as I have repeatedly explained....as soon as I get hold of definitive information on the ACARS acknowledgement mechanisms (we're not there yet) my interest in this thread is likely to be done with.
Er, but I do
What I want to know is definitive information about the mechanism of ACARS message acknowledgement.
Soooo....come on folks. Out with it.
I have flown for over 37 years, I have been an engineer for over 36 years and worked on engineering project for over 37 years.Flying operations or engineering projects ? You would'a thought aeronautical would'a cropped up in there somewhere eh ? Aircraft ? Even Flight. Flying ? Okay.
And as I have repeatedly explained....as soon as I get hold of definitive information on the ACARS acknowledgement mechanisms (we're not there yet) my interest in this thread is likely to be done with.
Er, but I do
What I want to know is definitive information about the mechanism of ACARS message acknowledgement.
Soooo....come on folks. Out with it.
We already covered ACARS "acknowledgment". You missed it, it zipped right by. Woodybox makes up failed conclusions, like your CD delusion; based on lack of knowledge. 911 truth, the anti-intellectual movement.
Just the one ?
Is that your TV rig ?But seriously...
Really ? Care to re-enlighten me ?
Remember I'm after definitive information about the mechanism of ACARS message acknowledgement.
That'll mean links to external docs with an appropriate level of low-level technical detail.
Pretty sure it's not turned up yet, but by all means...
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Who have you contacted at the airlines? You have talked to people in the industry, right?
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Just the one ?
But seriously...
Really ? Care to re-enlighten me ?
Remember I'm after definitive information about the mechanism of ACARS message acknowledgement.
[\QUOTE]
For the moment assume, yes, there was an acknowledgement.
What does that do to support your hypothis?
Assume no,
What does that do to support your hypothis?
What is your hypothesis, anyway?
Remember you have already missed the answer and seem unable to do an analysis of the available facts and evidence to figure out the answer for yourself.
The definitive information on acknowledgment has been available and explained. Like your CD delusion on 911, you can't find or assemble the available information to form a rational conclusion. In this case "definitive" acknowledgment information has been explained, or is in the evidence accumulated in the thread. You will fail to find the information or understand it if you use the same methods you used to come up with your CD delusion. It is simple. Do you do simple or only diffuse paranoid conspiracy theories based on shallow research and sloppy analysis?
Why not look it up, you have no point to make, you have no conclusion or goal; why can't you find the information already in evidence?
https://www.arinc.com/cf/store/catalog.cfm?prod_group_id=1&category_group_id=3 Darn, you will have to buy the information since you can't figure it out; lol?
http://www.hoppie.nl/acars/ Your question is not a good one.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7184763.html You could piece together the answer and you will have branches to what needs to be more specific for different cases.
http://www.airnavsystems.com/ACARS/ Why do you ask questions about things that have nothing to do with 911 except for idiots like Woodybox?
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/aviation_hobby/read.main/90540 Will you be able to figure out what you are looking for?
http://www.acarsd.org/ Lots of information on the web; I wonder if the simplified version of your answer is proprietary? Not like your simplified nonsense about NIST, but a simple answer (which has many variations), is it proprietary? How many contracts have you had with aerospace companies? How much experience have you with proprietary data and information?
http://www.aviationarticles.net/ACARS-How-does-it-work.php Now I see why 911 truth has problems and prefers to make up conclusions like the real CD deal. All of 911 truth has a problem gather information and making rational conclusions and never can answer their question given lots of help.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/65500-what-acars-how-does-work.html What is cool about ACARS; it is what it is for each specialty. Each part of the aviation world has their own view of what ACARS does for them. Cool.
http://www.ispacg-cra.com/FANS_1_A_Datalink_Comm_V1.0.pdf What will ACARS be next? I can't believe Woodybox uses ACARS to back his idiotic ideas of stupidity on 911.
Last edited:
Clearly not, or you would simply have quoted it.
Pot. Kettle.
Have tried to, but thanks for the links. Shall trawl through them to see if I can extract appropriate details. Will of course post here if so.
The thread gives you tons of references to help figure it out. Must be like reading NIST, you can't figure it out with the whole work; you make up your own summary. This is the same deal, but you have to use the whole work and come up with an answer that may be bigger, much bigger and diffuse than the question implies. Sorry, but life is not a yes and no answer, or short statements like you want NIST to be. It is complicated and long answers, not what you want, but what IS.
... life is more complicated than your CD world of fantasy and moronic conclusions made up due to ignorance.
... your conclusion of CD is based on leaving out data, you can't figure out the answer here unless you read and comprehend at a college level. The answer to acknowledgment is in the thread, you need to use logic and reason to figure it out. Got research?
Who owns ACARS? Who runs ACARS? How does proprietary software and algorithms play for finding the fine details pertaining to your question? lol, are you too busy publishing your CD delusion in a real journal? How does the attack on the Pentagon work with CD at the WTC? What about Flight 93? ACARS messages are not anomalies on 911; Woodybox makes up lies. His ignorance of ACARS and reading FBI notes literally, has formed his moronic conclusions. Use the force Luke; use all the evidence ...
Last edited:
The technical functionality of a system such as ACARS is most definitely a yes/no.
Either the message acknowlegment mechanism is automated as most available texts imply, or it is not.
The specific low-level details will also be available.
If you choose to guess, that's your own affair. I won't.
I'll await definitive details before making a conclusion.
Thanks.
Looking for a yes or no answer to a diffuse question.
Have you found your CD evidence yet?
http://www.wavecom.ch/onlinehelp/WCODE/default.htm?turl=WordDocuments/acars.htm
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~cjr/connections.htm
http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/oeb/networks/amdar.shtml
Woodybox makes up lies about 911 using ACARS anomalies. The ACARS anomalies are in his head, his paranoid conspiracy theory filled head.
What kind of acknowledgment are you interested in, which part of the system? What does this have to do with 911? What is your hypothesis? What does this have to do with your hypothesis? Will the answer be yes, or no?
The technical functionality? lol, yes and no.
What was the question? Was it acknowledgment of an aircraft changing to a frequency of 130.450 when a data transceiver auto tune message is sent, or the acknowledgment from the aircraft? What do you want acknowledgment of? The system has built in acknowledgment like other systems. The engine data is automatically sent to the home office based on each airlines procedures and the aircraft and ground stations make sure the data is sent based on the system the airline has set up, and the workings of ACARS.
On 911 some people who sent ACARS messages wanted the crew to respond and answer back. There was no such personal acknowledgments; the pilots were dead or dying after the terrorists displaced them from the seats. The aircrew used phones to call mother and explain they had been hijacked; Flight 93 Passengers figured out 911 in minutes and took action, here you are over 8 years later lost looking for something easy to find, but not able to figure out 911.
This is a lot of information on the internet. You can find enough to answer your question. What was the question? Can you expand on it and narrow it down?