9/11 acars

[Cheap Shot]

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?

Our tallest antennas at Boston for VHF are only about 75 ft, negligible in your calcualtions, but htere are all kinds of weather phenomena that can mess with signals, and also bouncing off structures, so it is possible the range could be furhter than 170 miles.

 

[A W Smith]

208.7 miles to horizon at 29000 feet. NOT INCLUDING TRANSMISSION TOWER

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?

Our tallest antennas at Boston for VHF are only about 75 ft, negligible in your calcualtions, but htere are all kinds of weather phenomena that can mess with signals, and also bouncing off structures, so it is possible the range could be furhter than 170 miles.

http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Add 10.6 miles for a 75 foot tower.

 

[jaydeehess]

100 miles at 29000!

That's rich!

When in the Acrtic the DC-3', Twin Otters and C-130's that came in would call us when 30 minutes out. The twotters were flying VFR, i.e. below 10,000 feet. While I am not absolutly sure of the crusie speed of a twin Otter I am certain that its around 200 MPH at least, and at 30 minutes out they would be contacting us (on VHF freq's) at 100 miles out.

There is no reason why a voice communication on VHF should carry further than a data communication.

Our ground station VHF transmitters were 100W and also had no problem contacting aircraft 100 miles out. In fact I could hear VHF conversations occassionally between Speedbirds (British Airways 747's) who were communicating with a station 600 miles to the east. I could not hear the other ground station of course. Yes, VHF (and even more so, UHF) is line-of-sight but many things can affect this as well. Of course transmitter power, quality of antenna and cabling are one aspect (though Ballswinger's assertion that age drastically causes Tx's and antennae to detriorate is quite laughable, do the airlines not maintain the equipment and test such things as forward and reflected power in these devices to specs? )

One more anecdote.
VHF can, its not a garuntee, but it can, under certain atmospheric contions travel much further than strict line of sight.

I am now at a TV station. Several years ago we got complaints from viewers watching our off air signal on Ch 13 (VHF band!) that they were reciving something other than our signal. I went out with a simple hand held antenna and a B&W TV, power supplied by a cheap DC-AC inverter in my car, and lo and behold depending on which direction I pointed the antenna I could get another ch 13 station. One accross the US border and about 350 miles away, the other in the next west province about 400 miles away. Within the hour both stations could no longer be received as the atmospherics that allowed it changed. While that never was reported as happening again it does illustrate that RB's wish that VHF absolutly must be no more than strict LoS is ridiculous and serves to bolster the recorded ability of rcvrs 200+ miles from the aircraft location to log reception from those aircraft.

Beachnut is quite correct about HF comm. In our Artic station we could easily hear Gander, Newfounland on HF despite the fact that we were in the far western arctic (Mould Bay, Prince Patrick Island, N.W.T., if one cares to Google it)

 

[jaydeehess]

Terrain was not a factor in the Arctic as our station was just above sea level and the aircraft were approaching from over the ocean.

 

[ozeco41]

...One more anecdote.
VHF can, its not a garuntee, but it can, under certain atmospheric contions travel much further than strict line of sight.

I am now at a TV station. Several years ago we got complaints from viewers watching our off air signal on Ch 13 (VHF band!) that they were reciving something other than our signal. I went out with a simple hand held antenna and a B&W TV, power supplied by a cheap DC-AC inverter in my car, and lo and behold depending on which direction I pointed the antenna I could get another ch 13 station. One accross the US border and about 350 miles away, the other in the next west province about 400 miles away. Within the hour both stations could no longer be received as the atmospherics that allowed it changed. While that never was reported as happening again it does illustrate that RB's wish that VHF absolutly must be no more than strict LoS is ridiculous and serves to bolster the recorded ability of rcvrs 200+ miles from the aircraft location to log reception from those aircraft.....

One phenomenon which can carry VHF far beyond line of sight is "tropospheric ducting".

It operates when there are stable atmospheric conditions over the radio path AND a high temperature layer at altitude with lower temperatures near the ground. A similar effect to visual mirages - the temperature causes the transmitted radio waves to bend in the atmosphere and - given the appropriate temperature gradients - the curved path matches the curvature of the earth.

So it is inverted in comparison with visual mirages which result from high temperature near the ground bending the light waves concave upwards - so you see the blue sky apparently on the ground and looking like a body of water. On 45^oC plus days in the flat outback of Australia I have regularly seen up to seven mirages laid out in front of me on the black highway. (maybe more - don't usually bother counting.

Back to radio my own experiences include:
Several occasions receiving Brisbane VHF TV in Sydney - that's 950 KM by road so over 850 "line of sight". Had to point the antenna that way to get it - and that way avoiding interference from the same channel broadcasting in Sydney. Don't ask me why I tried it - I cannot remember. (Memory returns partially. I had another antenna pointing near due south to pick up an additional channel from another city. Brisbane was the other way - north from my location. And as I now remember the Brisbane signal came in on the back of that second antenna - it might have been that the frequency was an harmonic of the antenna tuning.... Back off Eric - that's overkill of detail....)

One occasion I was in Rotorua New Zealand and heard a fellow Australian radio amateur calling on the local 2metre (144-148MHz) repeater. I thought he was also in New Zealand. Not so he was in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney Aust at about 2000 feet above sea level. And that is about 2300 KM distance from Rotorua.

Then on several occasions I have spoken to amateur operators from Greymouth - New Zealand South Island, accessing our local repeater in Sydney. Also over 2200KM distance and way beyond line of sight.

Tropospheric ducting in all cases.

So don't take 100 or 200 miles as in anyway a rigid limit for quite a few reasons.

And it's usually not pure power or antenna gain that reaches the distance. The amateur experiences would have used no more that 25 watts into the antenna that sent the long distance signal.

 

[jaydeehess]

One phenomenon which can carry VHF far beyond line of sight is "tropospheric ducting".

Thank you, I had forgotten the term

In my case there was ground level thick fog, it was morning hours.
Thus it would seem that ground level air was cool causing the fog while the sun coming up would have warmed upper level air before reaching the ground. The phenomena disappeared as the sun rose higher and the fog dissapated(ie. the air at ground level warned up).

(Memory returns partially. I had another antenna pointing near due south to pick up an additional channel from another city. Brisbane was the other way - north from my location. And as I now remember the Brisbane signal came in on the back of that second antenna - it might have been that the frequency was an harmonic of the antenna tuning.... Back off Eric - that's overkill of detail....)

Pish posh, its interesting.

The distant signal may well have been broadcasting on the same channel. In Canada it is assumed that distance does a good enough job of separating channels, occassional ducting is considered rare and unusual enough and does require that thge rcv antenna be pointed in that direction(or as you point out 180 deg off). To recieve local channels of course, people point their antenna AT the local Tx so distant trop ducting would only affect a few local users and only for a short duration. ETA: not sure if you were referring to TV, commercial radio, or Amateur. I was of course referring to TV

.........

...Then on several occasions I have spoken to amateur operators from Greymouth - New Zealand South Island, accessing our local repeater in Sydney. Also over 2200KM distance and way beyond line of sight.

Tropospheric ducting in all cases.

So don't take 100 or 200 miles as in anyway a rigid limit for quite a few reasons.


Of course here we are both referring to Rx and Tx essentially at ground level whereas ACARS would have one location several thousand feet agl. That would, I expect, change the effect to one in which ground air is warmer than upper air for the same reason that mirages show sky.

One occasion I was in Rotorua New Zealand and heard a fellow Australian radio amateur calling on the local 2metre (144-148MHz) repeater. I thought he was also in New Zealand. Not so he was in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney Aust at about 2000 feet above sea level. And that is about 2300 KM distance from Rotorua

In contrast while up north we used 20 meter band (VE8MD) to place calls home. Often I could reach stations a few hundred miles either side of my home town and have that operator ask me if I was hearing VE3xxx in my home town, which I could not though one would expect that I should have. After all I could speak with stations in South Africa, Australia(sorry I do not recall call sign) and Russia as well as many in the USA.




And it's usually not pure power or antenna gain that reaches the distance. The amateur experiences would have used no more that 25 watts into the antenna that sent the long distance signal.[/QUOTE]

 

[ozeco41]

Thank you, I had forgotten the term...

Thanks. A long time since I used it also.

...In my case there was ground level thick fog, it was morning hours.
Thus it would seem that ground level air was cool causing the fog while the sun coming up would have warmed upper level air before reaching the ground. The phenomena disappeared as the sun rose higher and the fog dissapated(ie. the air at ground level warned up)....

Could be. I wasn't specifically claiming tropo as a big feature in ACARS.

....The distant signal may well have been broadcasting on the same channel. In Canada it is assumed that distance does a good enough job of separating channels, occassional ducting is considered rare and unusual enough and does require that thge rcv antenna be pointed in that direction(or as you point out 180 deg off)....

The State capitals Sydney. Melbourne and Brisbane used the same five freqs for the four nationwide major channels - relying on distance as you say. They are all UHF digital now and in process of turning off the old VHF transmitters. Despite years of warning there are still a few people getting caught without digital Rx.

... To recieve local channels of course, people point their antenna AT the local Tx so distant trop ducting would only affect a few local users and only for a short duration. ETA: not sure if you were referring to TV, commercial radio, or Amateur. I was of course referring to TV....

It was TV at about 200 MHz for the Brisbane>>>Sydney episode. All the NZ ones 2 meter Amateur - 146.8 repeater output by coincidence for both cases - that is why the Australian based in Blue Mountains near Sydney was "on" the local (Sydney) 146.8 repeater and also getting in to the local one at Rotorua on the same freq. Both near enough same direction from his location if he was using a directional antenna. It would have been puzzling to the locals in Sydney who would only be hearing his side of our contact.

...Of course here we are both referring to Rx and Tx essentially at ground level whereas ACARS would have one location several thousand feet agl. That would, I expect, change the effect to one in which ground air is warmer than upper air for the same reason that mirages show sky....

Yes.

...In contrast while up north we used 20 meter band (VE8MD) to place calls home. Often I could reach stations a few hundred miles either side of my home town and have that operator ask me if I was hearing VE3xxx in my home town, which I could not though one would expect that I should have. After all I could speak with stations in South Africa, Australia(sorry I do not recall call sign) and Russia as well as many in the USA....

Limited license here - no HF, no morse - was VK2YEC but "forgot" to renew a few years back and no longer active.

 

[beachnut]

No Pulitzer for Balsamo's Delusion

I checked and could not find a Pulitzer for Balsamo latest delusional lie about 911. The claim is, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH". Balsamo says flight 77 and flight 93 were still airborne after they crashed. ? Several orders of magnitude lower than moronic, delusional, and insanity. No one has asked Balsamo's why the ACARS claim has not earned a Pulitzer Prize. Instead when Balsamo posts brain dead delusions, the brain dead dolts come, and leave proof of their failed education.

What do failed pilot for truth nuts think about insane claims made up out of ignorance.

Excellent solid research! Thanks to all! The "Official Story" continues to unravel...

Excellent work on the DFOs (Duplicated Flying Objects!)

Thanks for your stamina in continuing the unraveling of this day. You are all the true patriots. As a lay member of this and other professional groups I can follow your technical explanations well enough to appreciate the story. The public is being led to slaughter.

And what have these pilot for truth drones done armed with this new smoking gun information? Nothing.

Balsamo sells DVD packed with delusions and poppycock, his Followers do nothing. People who think they are Super Rational Smart people believe the planes are still airborne after they crashed, and they do nothing. They can't comprehend DNA, or RADAR, and they adopt the moronic claim put out by Balsamo the math wizard of Pilots Who Spreads Lies about 911. These Balsamo apologizers can't do math and physics or they would have left Balsamo's insane asylum at the 11.2g moron math event still posted years later.

The prime directive of Pilots Too Stupid to figure out 911, known as Pilots for 911 Truth, Balsamo says,
" We do not offer theory or point blame ", then makes the insane claim, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH". This is not a theory, it is delusion. The prime directive is safe.

Based on facts and data, Balsamo's claim is based on ignorance by quote-mining others.

Balsamo never posted goals or milestones for his latest claim. ... posting the goal to sell lies on DVD might not be a good idea. Truth hurts Balsamo, he bans those who post it; he has to, Education would ruin his audience. Balsamo is still working the ACARS failure, what will be the next rerun failure for the 11.2g failed physics expert and master of idiotic claims on 911?

 

[wstutt]

Rob Balsamo has now said in this post at P4T:

All references to the ACARS analysis on our front page and in the Latest News Section of this forum have been removed until those who sourced the material can gather their thoughts on the argument and come to a conclusion.

<snip>

Warren.

 

[Justin39640]

Rob Balsamo has now said in this post at P4T:
Warren.

You'd think that would be the first step prior to posting it. lol

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Rob Balsamo has now said in this post at P4T:
Warren.

That's probably as close to admitting an error we'll ever get from Balsammo.....

 

[skyeagle409]

I'm sure it's here somewhere, but can someone steer me to the debunk of this rubbish-

All one had to do was to pull out radar tracking and seismic data in addition to eyewitness accounts or they could have simply called American Airlines and United Airlines.

 

[skyeagle409]

The claim is, "ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH". Balsamo says flight 77 and flight 93 were still airborne after they crashed. ?

That simply tells me that Rob Balsamo does not understand anything about ACARS and has made himself a laughing stock in that regard. I guess he forgot radar tracking data and announcments from American Airlines and United Airlines regarding the loss of their aircraft at their reported crash sites.

Perhaps, I should tell him that my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck and that United 93 was tracked by radar to its crash site near Shanksville, not to mention seismic data and eyewitness accounts that pinned down the time of its crash.

How an experienced pilot overlooked those simple facts is beyond me unless Balsamo had other ideas to deliberately mislead people.

 

[beachnut]

...
How an experienced pilot overlooked those simple facts is beyond me unless Balsamo had other ideas to deliberately mislead people.

Balsamo never flew left seat heavy jets, he was not a captain in the major airlines. He has no ATP, a required licence to fly left seat airline.

The ATP is like a PhD in flying, why did Balsamo fail to get it...
When I got the ATP, before my flight I overheard a pilot candidate arguing with the FAA evaluator, he flunked. You don't argue, you are humble, if you don't know something you say you will get back to him... You can't know everything, but you can look it up and help. I had taken the equivalent of many ATP check rides in the USAF, but flying the light twin was more challenging than flying the KC-135 with the same requirements. Plus I only had one landing the light twin, on the check ride... no practice landing, just the final landing. Wonder if my ATP instructor told the check pilot I never landed the plane. Ironically, the check pilot knew a fellow pilot who was in my squadron, who was outstanding. I passed, but learned a lot on the check ride, and more during prep flights in a light twin.

An old thread, Balsamo's pilots for truth is in zombie reruns.

The pilot for truth and 9/11 truth claims of fantastic maneuvers on 9/11 got my attention... it was sad to learn they call crashing, a fantastic maneuver, something I can do in my sleep.
Flying jets like the 757/767 is easy, they engineered out the bad flying qualities that former models like the 707 and KC-135 had. The hard parts of flying are in the weather, landing, and takeoff. Depending on conditions.

ACARS has to be as dumb as DEW, Nukes, and thermite. Too bad Balsamo did not figure out CD was the way to make 500k a year... he would have beat Gage to the money pot. However, if Gage has rich friends he is giving back 85 percent of the donations, then Balsamo is lucky... Balsamo's fraud is only fooling idiots, not the IRS. maybe

who said multitasking was not good... the zen guy

 

[skyeagle409]

Balsamo never flew left seat heavy jets, he was not a captain in the major airlines. He has no ATP, a required licence to fly left seat airline.

When I first encountered Balsamo, I noticed that he posted far too many errors for me to believe that he was a pilot. However, another poster said that he was and for some reason I took his word, but I still did not feel comfortable believing that Balsamo was a pilot because he continued to post errors that any experienced commerical piot would have known was false. He also tried to con me on airspeed and airframe limitations, that is, until I posted a case where a DC-8 exceeded the speed of sound and landed safely.

I also looked at his comments on American 77 and thought to myself that this guy (Rob Balsamo) does not know what the heck he is talking about nor does he know anything about the technique in refernece to the maneuver of American 77 in the final minutes before striking the Pentagon. In regard to the FDR of American 77, I should have told him that American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Co. supplied the conversion formula that pertained to the FDR of American 77 and the fact that he placed ACARS before radar and seismic data proves thet he is not very knowledgeable.

.