ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash! Just WOW!

On page 6 of 10 :

[U] At 9:23 a.m. Ballinger transmitted his "cockpit intrusion" message (identical
to the previous ones) to Flights 27, 175, 81, 8151, 8155, 8179 and 161. With
respect to this message to Flight 175, Ballinger indicated that he was aware that
two commercial aircraft had hit the World Trade Center and that Flight 175 had
been hijacked, but he wasn't sure whether he knew that it had crashed by this
point (in which case the message would simply have been caused by his haste to
get the word out to all of his flights as soon as possible).

[U] At 9:24 a.m. Ballinger received along with all United Airlines stations the
following alert (sent at 9:22 a.m.) in the name of Andy Studdert: "FIt 175-11
BOS/LAX has been involved in an accident at New York. The Crisis Center has
been activated. United Airlines policy strictly prohibits giving information or
making statements about the incident to the news media or public officials by any
employee. WHQPR will release any and all subsequent information."

[U] Simultaneously with receipt of the Studdert message, Ballinger transmitted
the same "cockpit intrusion" message to Flights 93, 283, 83,91,23,8179,8146,
8117 and 17 at 9:24 a.m.
[U] Ballinger indicated that he did not think it would have been possible for him
to simultaneously send a message to just his aircraft, so he was entering them a
few at a time when sending his ACARS messages to get them out. When asked
how he determined the order in which he sent them, Ballinger indicated that he
was relying on two main lists: time of departure and en-route progress within the
ATC system. He said that he sent the message first to those aircraft that hadn't
taken off yet, and then to the aircraft that were en-route. In addition, Mr. Ballinger
stated that the ACARS messages have two times listed: the time sent and the time
received. He stated that once he sends the message it is delivered to the addressed aircraft through AIRINC immediately. He is not aware of any delay in the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it. Furthermore, he wanted to make
absolutely sure the flight crews got the message so he sent both a digital (with a
bell) and a text message which automatically printed. [NOTE: TEAM 7 WILL
RECEIVE BRIEFING BY AIRINC ON THE TIMING ISSUES INVOLVED
FROM COMPOSITION OF THE MESSAGE BY THE DISPATCHER, TO
TRANSMITTAL TO AIRINC, TO TRANSMITTAL FROM AIRINC TO THE
AIRCRAFT, TO THE AIRCRAFT'S RECEIPT OF THE MESSAGE.]

Bill Johnstone, from the 9/11 Commission staff, who wrote this report, used for the second, third, fourth and fifth time here AIRINC instead of the proper term ARINC. That's why I have edited in a few posts the term ARINC back to AIRINC. Sloppy staff work...

The statement by Ballinger that at 9:23 a.m. he transmitted his "cockpit intrusion" message (identical to the previous ones) to Flight 175, and wasn't sure that it had crashed by this point in time, indicates that the famous ACARS "" ***text*** "" message routinely sent/downlinked by the plane, was not received by him yet, otherwise he would have been quite sure that the plane had crashed in New York.

This means that UAL175 that crashed in New York at 9:02 a.m., had at least an ACARS NoComm (***text***) text message arrival lag at Ballinger's desk, of more than 20 minutes.

By the way, Ballinger stated that his messages were delivered TO the addressed aircraft through AIRINC (ARINC) immediately.
Then he says that he is not aware of any delay IN the aircraft receiving the message after he sends it.

He said not : delivered IN the addressed aircraft. He said "TO". That means towards.....
But he however says "" delay IN the aircraft "".


Then my remark about him not being aware of any delay in receiving the message sent by him to the aircraft:
Look at the 2 minutes difference in sent-time stamp and received-time stamp by Ballinger, of the ACARS message by Andy Studdert that Flt 175 and Flt 11 had crashed in New York.

reply to post by LaBTop


You're a VERY intelligent person, "LaBToP".

I will let you chew on this post, and it IS in your post above....ALL in your post..... and think about it....the answers to your questions are contained within.

They are also obvious to those of us who are, were or will be familiar with how ACARS works, as users day in, day out...Or just on each trip that we fly or have flown.......

reply to post by seenavv


5-10 min text? You must be using ATT I-phone.

Well what we learned from all this is we need an investigation into 9/11.

Originally posted by WetBlanky
Well what we learned from all this is we need an investigation into 9/11.

Yes you do. And by "we" I am not refering to the general public. We're done. Its over. But the truth movement needs to do its own investigation and start getting its ducks in a row. You have adherents that don't believe that any planes hit the buildings and other fellow travelers that believe that planes did the buildings but they were piloted by Mossad agents. Still others think they were remote control, controlled demolition, thermite, thermate, lasers from space, no victims, the buildings were empty, flight 77 flew over the Pentagon, there was no flight 93, there was a flight 93 but it was shot down, there was a flight 93 but it landed in Cleveland and some government gnomes faked the crash site and on and on and on.

What are you suggesting? That every time someone that has access to the internet comes up with another idea we should drop everything and start a new investigation?

Tell you what, come up with something to investigate and then we'll talk.

Warren Stutt does it again!

Warren came up with the following:

Messages with the code

* "ULMSG" are from airline to ARINC, to be routed via a target radio station (Target Stn)m which could be the wrong one; it's probably determined by airline from flight plan
* "ULBLK" are messages from ground station to plane - the actuak ground station sending is in the tag "Stn="
* "DLBLK" are messages from plane to ground station (downlink). The actual receiving station is in the tag "BepStnName="


Time stamps are in Universal Time, which was ET +4h., So a stamp of "20010911 13:47:31" translates to 9:47:31ET.

Some stations can be looked up here:
www.angelfire.com...
Some more here:
www.universal-radio.com...
And a map here:
datalink.sas.se...

Some stations that I saw in the ACARS log:
BWI=Baltimore
CAK=Akron (Ohio)
CLE=Cleveland
CRW= Charleston (West Virginia)
CVG=Cincinnati
DTW=Detroit
EWR=Newark, NJ
FWA=Fort Wayne (Indiana)
HTS=? (I am guessing Huntington, West Virginia)
IAD=Washington (Dulles)
LGA=New York City (La Guardia)
ORF=Norfolk, VA
PIT=Pittsburg
SYR=Syracuse (NY)
TOL=Toledo (Ohio)
YYZ=Toronto

UA93 crashed at 10:03:11. Warren notices correctly that the last DLBLK message from UA93 was received at 10:01:57/59ET by ground stations Pittsburgh (ca. 80 miles from Shanksville) and Washington-Dulles (ca. 150 miles from Shanksville).
After crash time, there are no more DLBLK messages, only uplinks.

Rob Balsamo at P4T doubts Warren's expertise, and his interpretation of "BepStnName=" tags for DLBLK messages, and mockingly points out that a DLBLL was received from UA93 at 09:47:31ET by ground stations in Detroit, Dulles and Toronto. The message was also received by Pittsburgh and HTS (Huntington, WV?).
Rob seems to think this is not possible. However, at the time the plane had turned near Cleveland and was somewhere near the Ohio-Pennsylvania-West Virginia state borders, heading east towards Pittsburgh. That location was approx.

*

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Warren Stutt does it again!

Poor Captain Boob. He got so upset...he put Warren on "moderated status" therefor, Warren's response to the BoobMan was not posted!

What you'll see now is more techno babble from Ballsucker to continue to confuse the issue to the naive and gullible in addition to a relentless veracious attack on Warren's credibility...

So whats the general consensus on this one then?

Did the plane receive the text 'after' it crashed or not?

Is there anything suspicious in that case?

I just hope there aren't members in here deliberately spreading disinfo on this one by exploiting the majoritys lack of aviation electronics knowledge...


Gibonz

reply to post by Gibonz


Easy answers?

Did the plane receive the text 'after' it crashed or not?

Nope

Is there anything suspicious in that case?

Nope.


This sort of "original thought" only gets traction on certain Forums, where the same sorts of "moderation" are nothing, nothing, nothing at all as fair as seen here (at ATS).

Some of these "Forums" are administrated by "dictators" and minor "tin-despots" who do not follow their own rules of their version of "Terms and Conditions". In other words, as long as you "agree" with those who run the Forum, your posts are allowed....if you "dare to disagree" (and, even include EVIDENCE!!) well then, your posts are not welcomed" there. No matter if you are polite, and respective and conform to all T&C as posted.....it is a "personal" judgement that is imposed.

Seen it, lived it.

ATS, on the other hand? Completely different, in that same regard.

Hmmm, so Warren got an another FOIA with actual raw ACARS data.

See here.

Will be interesting to analyze. Where did Warren get the full specs?

I wondered why it was so quiet in the "CIT defeats nitwit book author" thread. I think they're scrambling for damage control and regrouping.

Originally posted by Reheat

What you'll see now is more techno babble from Ballsucker to continue to confuse the issue to the naive and gullible in addition to a relentless veracious attack on Warren's credibility...

True! He has yet to post the response from Warren that he asked for.

When Warren attempted to post his answers to the idiots questions... this was what Balsamo said:

Warren,

I have split out your reply to keep in a safe place until you address the information and questions you continually avoid.

pilotsfor911truth.org...

Balsamo then continues with the techno babble crap and like a coward, never posts the response. Why do the idiots continue to listen to this retard? Oh... forget it...i just answered my own question.

Why doesn't Warren just come here?

At least he won't be subjected to the tyrannical whims of Rob Balsamo, the moderator who bans everything and everybody who proves him wrong.

Hey Warren, sign up! Publish your findings!

reply to post by Six Sigma


BINGO!!!!

ASKED and....answered:

Balsamo then continues with the techno babble crap and like a coward, never posts the response. Why do the idiots continue to listen to this retard? Oh... forget it...i just answered my own question.

done and....done.

Originally posted by snowcrash911
Why doesn't Warren just come here?

At least he won't be subjected to the tyrannical whims of Rob Balsamo, the moderator who bans everything and everybody who proves him wrong.

Hey Warren, sign up! Publish your findings!

He is a member here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Six Sigma
He is a member here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Oh. Thanks.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

BINGO!!!!

ASKED and....answered:

Balsamo then continues with the techno babble crap and like a coward, never posts the response. Why do the idiots continue to listen to this retard? Oh... forget it...i just answered my own question.

done and....done.

The clearest reason why one would be inclined to believe Warren Stutt in these matters, I would say, is primarily his dispassionate position, the classic "non-interested third-party observer" to these issues and his scholarly approach, which is 180 degrees out from the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, My Way or the Highway, My Whole Income and Way Of Life Depends On My "Factually Baseless and Fanciful and Delusional" Claims of "Capt" Bob Balsamo. There really is no question. Balsamo has been laughed out of more courtrooms than Judge Judy has ever seen yet he presses on, which sure resembles the classic diagnosis of psychosis - a mental disorder characterized by symptoms, such as delusions (as outlined in a legal finding by Judge Denny Chin in the hilarious April Gallop case) or hallucinations, that indicate impaired contact with reality...that has "Capt" Bob written all over it.

Warren's reply was posted. Now he refuses to answer questions which prove his paper garbage using his own calculations.

Just click here

reply to post by trebor451


I'm confused about something. Since there is radar data, aircraft debris and witnesses that confirm the airplane hit the building, isn't more reasonable to assume that any analysis of the ACARS data that shows the aircraft elsewhere is probably flawed? I don't understand all the technical details but the logic to conclude that the aircraft was still flaying after it is known to have crashed is fatally flawed.

reply to post by bubs49


Oh dear......the "just click here" in that post is a hyperlink to another silly "P4T" thread...

Oh, the "shame, the shame"!!! Or, the "Pain, the pain".....

Originally posted by bubs49
Warren's reply was posted. Now he refuses to answer questions which prove his paper garbage using his own calculations.

Just click here

Another shameless lie. Since Rob Balsamo knows he took yet another crushing blow by Warren, he simply abuses his moderator powers by switching the subject, while Warren repeatedly requests on-topic discussion. The FDR issues Ball-samo raises have all been resolved.

Balsamo is humiliated once again, and he can't stand it, so now he's actually withdrawn Warren's posting privileges until Warren answers Balsamo's off-topic, long debunked questions about AA 77's FDR.

Balsamo is a coward. Nobody should join P4T's forum to debate him there. Let him come to you. I suggest Warren continues posting his results here.