9/11 acars

[wstutt]

This is from a post by Rob:

I spoke with Dennis regarding this new garbage released from Warren. The stations which Warren thinks are the front end RGS, eg PITC6, are in fact Back End Processing routers for the landline transmissions before getting to/from the Target remote ground station eg, PIT, CLE, CAK, CMI... (no suffix) etc, hence the "BepStnName", and the suffix "C6, B6... A6".. etc... and the reason why UAL Dispatchers don't claim that all those messages went through PIT.

I look forward to Dennis Cimino providing the documentation to back up his claim.

Why are these supposed routers consistently within range of where UA93 was according to the FDR, but the Target remote ground stations are not after UA93 left its planned flight path?

Warren.

 

[Oystein]

This is from a post by Rob:

I look forward to Dennis Cimino providing the documentation to back up his claim.

Why are these supposed routers consistently within range of where UA93 was according to the FDR, but the Target remote ground stations are not after UA93 left its planned flight path?

Warren.

Your interpretation makes total sense. Their doubt is grasping at straws. So even if the suffix denotes some router, the prefixes still indicate the same airport radios that uplinks are targeted at or routed through. Why would a message that was received by a RGS other than PIT be routed through a router prefixed with PIT? Some downlinks were received by 3 or 4 stations - these tend to surround the radar/FDR location of the plane, not the nearest uplink target.

 

[wstutt]

Hi Oystein,

This seems to be the more natural interpretation of Ballinger's (paraphrased) words, but couldn't it be receipt by the RGS?

Well at least a receipt by some part of the system other than the aircraft.

And it is obvious that this literal interpretation is not something that Winter could possibly know.

Exactly. Is there some system where a microphone in the cockpit is listening for the audible signal and transmitting an indication back to the ground that an audible signal was detected? I think not.

Warren.

 

[wstutt]

This is a reply in response to several posts by Sergio starting with this one

Here is a quote from David Knerr, Manager, Dispatch Automation, United Airlines from page 37 of this document

KNERR advised that when an aircraft downlinks data to
communication towers it does so by sending out messages over a large
geographic area that it is flying. Depending on the area of the
country, more than one communication tower may receive the aircraft's
message. KNERR pointed this out to be the case during FLIGHT 93's
flight over New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio on 09/11/2001.

so the aircraft does not have to be over any particular station. I have never claimed that the Stn or BepStnName must be directly under the aircraft only that BepStnName is within range of the aircraft. Remember Rob said that the range is 200 miles?

Ground stations can send messages up to 200 miles, but this is only guaranteed if the aircraft is above 29,000 feet, as stated in the MFR sourced above.

Also not guaranteed does not mean impossible.

In my example I did not mean to imply that the first acknowledgement of an ACARS message will always be through the same RGS station as the message was transmitted through, only that both would be within range of the aircraft.

Warren.

 

[Mynott]

Again a plea to collate and present all this info ,rebutting Robert Balsamo and p4t ,for the less technically informed( like me). Even a cursory glance at the salient posts on p4t suggest they are seductive and plausible to the uninformed and naive.
This would give the ordinary person of reasonable intelligence a chance to respond to their outlandish assertions wherever they appear..

 

[Oystein]

This is a reply in response to several posts by Sergio starting with this one

Here is a quote from David Knerr, Manager, Dispatch Automation, United Airlines from page 37 of this document
so the aircraft does not have to be over any particular station. I have never claimed that the Stn or BepStnName must be directly under the aircraft only that BepStnName is within range of the aircraft. Remember Rob said that the range is 200 miles?
Also not guaranteed does not mean impossible.

In my example I did not mean to imply that the first acknowledgement of an ACARS message will always be through the same RGS station as the message was transmitted through, only that both would be within range of the aircraft.

Warren.

Like I said in Post 27, there was on DLBLK that was received by stations 200-250 miles away when the plane was at about 19,000 feet, according to the NTSB analysis; at 19,000 feet, horizon is at a distance of approx. 170 miles (using pocket calculator, trigonometry and textbook values for radius of earth etc.). I understand that VHF radio is line of sight plus a little. Are those antennae high?

 

[wstutt]

Here's a couple of quotes from a post by Sergio at P4T

"In the final moments, at 10:12 AM EST, of UA FLIGHT 93's flight, ACARS messages were being sent from ground communications but were not being received". This means obviously that messages sent before were received by United 93, no ifs, no buts.

The fact that there are no DLBLK blocks after 9:50 EDT in the logs provided by Stutt does not surprise me. Probably they were knowingly removed before releasing the paper. Of course, this is just my speculation. However it is also the most logical conclusion. After all, producing DLBLK after 10:12 would be the same as leaving the aircraft registered as still flying. Just like stealing a car from a dealership and returning for an oil change later. Otherwise we should assume that Winter and Knerr are incompetent or lied. And also we should assume that both logs coming from Ballinger's desk are fake.
So basically the question is: did the government lie or did Knerr, Winter and Ballinger lie? Up to you.

He's said it for himself, I think.

Warren.

 

[Oystein]

Pathetic.

I lol'd.

 

[tsig]

Again a plea to collate and present all this info ,rebutting Robert Balsamo and p4t ,for the less technically informed( like me). Even a cursory glance at the salient posts on p4t suggest they are seductive and plausible to the uninformed and naive.
This would give the ordinary person of reasonable intelligence a chance to respond to their outlandish assertions wherever they appear..

Missing people, DNA testing, airplane parts, radar tracks, the laws of physics and eye witnesses rebut Balsamo.

If anyone thinks that some small, perceived anomaly can overthrow all the evidence then they are completely delusional.

 

[Oystein]

Missing people, DNA testing, airplane parts, radar tracks, the laws of physics and eye witnesses rebut Balsamo.

If anyone thinks that some small, perceived anomaly can overthrow all the evidence then they are completely delusional.

And that anomaly is not even perceived - it is laboriously invented.

There is no expert who claims explicitly that the plane send any kind of message back to the ground after crash time.
The message logs are clear:
There are basically three kinds of messages:

• ULMSG - sent from airline to ARINC network. It contains a "target station", which is close to expected location of plane, according to flight plan
• ULBLK - sent from Remote Ground Station (land-based VHF antenna). This contains the RGS that actually sent the message. ARINC determines this from the antennae that last received a message from plane
• DLBLK - a message down from the plane, received by ground station. Often by more than one ground station. Ground stations may be within a radius of >200 miles

If you read the logs message by message, and compare time stamps with flight plan and actual flight path as determined by NTRSB from radar and FDR, you will find that ULMSG follow the airlines's flight plan (e.g. UA93: going east from NY through PA and OH into IA), while ULBLK follow actual flight path (for example UA93: from Newark to Pittsburgh, on to Cleveland, and back to Pittsburgh). DLBLK stations follow actual flight path, too, just with more variation as some messages get received as far west as Detroit, as far north as Toronto, as far south as Charleston (WV) and as far east as Baltimore.
After crash time, no more DLBLK, but airlines and ARINC still trying to send up to where they think the plane ought to be (flight plan, going west) or was last (Pittsburgh).

Absolutely EVERYTHING in the ACARS logs actually CORROBORATES radar and FDR analysis by NTSB.

Balsamo and his fellow loons pretend they are better at analysing radar, FDR and ACARS than the NTSB.

 

[Mynott]

Well thats are pretty good summation of the salient issues but I still would like it fleshed out a bit more so that people can refer to and quote it on their MBs and forums etc when they come up those who want to obfuscate and bamboozle of which p4t seem to be so good at.

 

[beachnut]

Never seen more morons in one place than p4t forum. They all have to ignore DNA, RADAR, FDR, and more to accept the dumbest claims made by Balsamo to date.


ACARS Confirmed - 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Long After Crash, PilotsFor911Truth.org

should read...
ACARS Claims made by 11.2g failed physics expert Balsamo - Confirm there are morons who fall for anything and they can be found at PilotsFor911Truth.org

UAL Dispatcher does not know if his message was received by the crew. AIRINC would have to tell him, or the crew would have to send a reply. A UAL dispatcher is not an expert on ACARS, he is an expert on dispatching. Balsamo is not an expert on flying/ACARS/FDR/DNA/NTSB/RADAR/ETC, he is an expert at spreading lies, an expert at posting from Turbofans basement, and selling lies on DVD.

 

[Oystein]

Well thats are pretty good summation of the salient issues but I still would like it fleshed out a bit more so that people can refer to and quote it on their MBs and forums etc when they come up those who want to obfuscate and bamboozle of which p4t seem to be so good at.

I don't see how you can flesh this out in more detail while avoiding going technical.

But I think you have seen Warren go into detail, you have seen the summary - why don't you give it a try yourself? That is also the best way to check if YOU have understood it.

 

[tsig]

Well thats are pretty good summation of the salient issues but I still would like it fleshed out a bit more so that people can refer to and quote it on their MBs and forums etc when they come up those who want to obfuscate and bamboozle of which p4t seem to be so good at.

You'll have to be more specific about the issues you want fleshed out. I hope you're not just asking questions.

 

[wstutt]

Here's another message. This time to AA77:

(Note to moderators: This image is on my web site)

This ULMSG has a target station of <00><00><00><00><00>. If Ed Ballinger and Michael J. Winter are correct, how is that supposed to get sent? However we still see ULBLKs for it and DLBLK acknowledgements from AA77 when you scroll down a bit further.

ETA: If the 5 character station names appearing in ULBLKs and DLBLKs are only routers as Dennis Cimino of P4T says, why is the Target Stn in ULMSGs always 5 characters instead of 3?

Also, there is a similar ULMSG for UA93.

Warren.

 

[Mynott]

My questioning? Not at.all . Merely suggesting that it could be useful for e.g. 9/11 myths to put up a rebuttal to p4t recent claims. A useful reference A reminder also not all of us have the technical know how or expertise and trained in Aviation Communications.
However am pleased to say that am keeping our local truther at bay and cornered by simply focussing on the Radar Track , the DNA and other Physical evidence as suggested He queries the DNA etc but suggested he contact Dr Dennis Dirkmaat and Paul Sledznik both whom led the Forensic examination at Shanksville to help allay his doubts .Now he finds that a real curly one .

 

[Reheat]

The charade is over

A fellow actually bought the technical specifications from ARINC and posted a definitive rebuttal to the pffft nonsense...

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.co...wtopic=213916&st=1770&p=4145817&#entry4145817

Although ARINC has tracking data from the aircraft's current position, the airlines do not. Therefore the airline dispatcher msgs to an aircraft use it's flight plan to determine the ground stations used for the uplink.

This along with Warren's msgs show the pffft crap as the nonsense we all knew it was.

A poster at ATS, Snowcrasher911 has summarized ballsucker's anticipated response in a very funny parody type narrative as follows:

First, he'll demand to see a resume and personal information for booNyzarC.

Then, he'll summarize how many new pilots have joined his organization, how well they all get along under Balsamo's North Korean conversation control and how this increases their credibility.

Then, he'll construct an illegible paragraph full of acronyms and obscure jargon, followed by a few sarcastic jabs, intended to underline his unchallenged supremacy in the field of sciolism.

Then, he'll attempt to change the subject, rehash some old half-baked canards, and pretend the jury is still out on that one.

Then, he'll ridicule, personally attack, threaten, viciously defame and attempt to intimidate his much stronger opponents.

Finally, he'll gild the pill with some bad jokes, move the goal posts, and ban his detractors from his kingdom... err forum.

Wait till the dust settles, lay low for a few months, then register a flock of new sock puppets on a plethora of good forums, purporting to be an "interested well-meaning truth seeker".

When confronted with past missteps, outrageous blunders, spin, obfuscation and lies; ignore and deflect.

Rinse and repeat. Rob Balsamo.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread781617/pg17&addstar=1&on=13030238#pid13030238

 

[plague311]

My questioning? Not at.all . Merely suggesting that it could be useful for e.g. 9/11 myths to put up a rebuttal to p4t recent claims. A useful reference A reminder also not all of us have the technical know how or expertise and trained in Aviation Communications.
However am pleased to say that am keeping our local truther at bay and cornered by simply focussing on the Radar Track , the DNA and other Physical evidence as suggested He queries the DNA etc but suggested he contact Dr Dennis Dirkmaat and Paul Sledznik both whom led the Forensic examination at Shanksville to help allay his doubts .Now he finds that a real curly one .

To be honest, most of the people that are arguing for 9/11 "truth" aren't the most educated...or organized. As far as the rest goes, I have little to no education in structural engineering or aviation at all. I've learned that taking what the knowledgeable people here state, doing research on their statements, and seeing that they are right gives me a better understanding.

As stated before, you gotta dig in. I know it's hard to understand, especially the abbreviations, etc. You have to take the time to look them up, listen to the debates, and question everyone, debunker or truther. It's the only way you'll have the confidence to back up whatever side YOU believe in.

Just my thoughts...

 

[beachnut]

The tangential junk on ACARS from Balsamo's moron forum for 911 delusions.

Balsamo has other people say something, Balsamo uses as the "truth" or a piece of "evidence". When Balsamo is proved wrong, he says you are calling the hearsay source a liar.

To support the ACARS moronic insanity, Balsamo claims ACARS does not have much range. Balsamo uses one of his fellow nuts on 911 issues as his "expert", but this "expert" is another anti-government nut who can't figure out 911 given the answers. In this case we have the delusional nut on 911 issues saying

"you and I both know that the 200 nautical mile range, is at best, a fairy tale, based on real world communications ranges on these same frequencies using the same power levels over all sorts of terrain at all sorts of altitudes." Balsamo's fellow nut on 911 issues

VHF range of 200 nautical miles for ACARS is not extreme, I have used VHF radio over 250 nautical miles. Not be impossible for ACARS to work 250 nautical miles away. No need to worry about defending this, Balsamo's failed Followers will not put together any rational work that needs debunking.

that's why these [laymen govt loyalists] can pull this xxxx. most people have no idea how much stuff makes that 200 nautical mile range totally a xxxxxxx PIPEDREAM". - Dennis Cimino

At 20,000 feet, 200 NM is reality. Balsamo and his fellow loon, it is fantasy. When Balsamo and his fellow loon learn how ACARS works, they will understand why it can go as far as it does. Sad a pilot and an engineer, bringing shame on two fields, falling for the moronic claptrap Balsamo spreads.

Reality, if there was a message sent from any of the flights on 911, and they were received, that is the range ACRAS can work. Balsamo and his fellow nuts will have to say all the data they have was fake, made up by the government, that is how idiots in the 911 truth business work; they make up more lies.

Balsamo and his fellow paranoid anti-government loon, made up junk about VHF radio. If my VHF radio does not work at 200 to 250 miles out, I write it up and it gets fixed. In Balsamo world, radios are old, rusted, not working to spec. Balsamo, a fraud selling lies on DVD, to idiots.

Indicative of his idiotic 11.2g wave hands make up a number, Balsamo makes up the ranges of ACARS (VHF) and other ideas based on his own incredible stupidity, or the expected ignorance of his failed Followers.

Although ARINC guarantees reception up to a maximum of 200 miles above 29,000 feet, this is only in ideal conditions (new aircraft, radios, antenna's... etc). Dennis feels reality is more like 100 miles based on aircraft age (stress, fatigue, rust around the antenna.. power output.. .etc.). This is why RGS stations are not very far apart, with even more concentration in busy hubs. (Made up by Balsamo)

100 miles? This is like 11.2g, made up out of ignorance. Why are RGS stations not very far apart? LOL! Because ACARS is used on the ground, and VHF radios on the ground, range is limited, ACARS is used at airports, thus you need local RGS stations, at airports. Easy to debunk 11.2g expert Balsamo? Warren does it all the time. Balsamo, is he as stupid as his claims, or is p4t a scam to sell DVDs filled with lies? If Balsamo is as insane as his claims, where does that leave his Followers?

Balsamo will have to edit ACARS on wiki, to add, "stress, fatigue, rust around the antenna...". How do you fatigue electromagnetic waves?


Warren publishes some rational ideas and facts about ACARS. To shut down Warren's posts, Balsamo tells Warren he has to answer more questions on Balsamo last insane claim and failure, which Warren debunked a long time ago. Warren posts facts, Balsamo bans Warren by removing posts. Here is the truthNAZI logic in action...

For those wondering, the above is a prime reason why none of the anonymous idiots around the web will ever come here to confront us and why Warren Stutt has run away with his tail tucked firmly between his legs when I showed him ...

? The day before Warren posted, as demanded by Balsamo. Warren's work debunks Balsamo, so Warren can't post. Being banned is called running away; we have doublespeak 1984 NAZI like tactics used by someone who sells idiotic delusions on DVD, dumbed down for morons. No need for anonymous idiots around the web to go over to Balsamo's forum, they have always been there, all of them. One stop shopping for failed ideas and insane claims on 911, p4tf.


Balsamo spreads the lie of "IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH". It takes onebrainshort to believe this junk.

When finding out Balsamo's ACARS was a scam, someone said the planes could have been substituted in flight, or on the ground, another Balsamo scam based on ignorance.

but by no means is a nail in the coffin for a mid-air swap or even a pre-takeoff swap which

911 truth lies never die for those too lazy, too crazy to think for themselves.

 

[Jackanory]

Flight Explorer springs to mind when reading this thread. Seem to remember it being raised by senamut & femr2 some time ago. femr2 had some nice videos for the kids to view on youboob. Thought it was established that it wasnt real time and that the system simply took an anticipated 'tracking' route or 'coasting' route from last known point when lost?