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

I see the OS defenders bashing Pilots for truth again!

In fact, anyone that produces any evidence that shows the OS to be a lie gets bashed by the so called 'debunkers'!

Hmmm, I wonder why they would behave like that eh?

It's easy to see some of the calls were faked too, and planes that were supposed to have crashed were seen on radar after they were supposed to have crashed.

All the evidence is stacked against the official story, it gets weaker by the hour.

Originally posted by thegameisup
I see the OS defenders bashing Pilots for truth again!

I don't know if you visited the links on the other thread, but I am not an "OS defender". As far as this OP, "ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash!", that is nothing but horse manure. Kind of like the cockpit door never opened on AAL77's flight fiasco. So yeah, I'll make fun of and bash the insanity that is P4T/CIT.

AAL175 was NOT "airborne after crash". I defer to those who have experience with such systems to address things like ACARS.

ACARS is a one-way VHF radio data transmission either from the ground, or the aircraft. There is no reasonable way for the sender to know if the message was received. If there was, I wouldn't need to call my company's MCC to set up a test message, which I have to be in the cockpit to receive and then call back the MCC to tell them if it was successful. If there was an acknowledgment, it could be done solely by the MCC with no need for a middleman. In normal flight ops, the MCC could always pick up the radio and call the aircraft on a company frequency to determine if a message was received. ACARS even has voice capability, so the pilot could simply punch the VHF 3 mic select button, switch the ACARS transmit from data to voice and say "got it, thanks".

All I know is, UAL175 exhibits an unbroken radar track on multiple systems from Logan to the WTC. No aircraft swaps, just a straight-forward termination of flight at the WTC which the rest of us witnessed live on television.

reply to post by thegameisup

How embarrassing of you to bring this up. Didn't you get the memo? After several weeks of Capt. Bob stomping around the Internet beating his chest like some kind of retarded gorilla in heat touting this as the latest smoking gun that proves 9/11 was an inside job, he removed this very subject from his website because some random dude that doesn't know jack crap about aviation made him look like the complete fool that he is.

Get with the program.

reply to post by ProudBird


Just a question...so these amateur pilots seemed to have some pretty impressive knowledge of aircraft specific tech in your opinion...since they must have known about each aircraft's transponder functions...which I do not have a clue about myself...but listening to your responses it would seem they would have.

also before you say they were not amateurs...why would they be in flight school just before the attacks...was it so they can easily be traced to the crime..also...why have you changed your name from weedwacker...that one baffles me...but is that because I am a clueless truther who cannot observe writing style..verbiage..or other personalized remarks that make up a person's persona.

Originally posted by 911files

Originally posted by thegameisup
I see the OS defenders bashing Pilots for truth again!

I don't know if you visited the links on the other thread, but I am not an "OS defender". As far as this OP, "ACARS Confirms 9/11 UA 175 Aircraft Was Airborne Long After Crash!", that is nothing but horse manure. Kind of like the cockpit door never opened on AAL77's flight fiasco. So yeah, I'll make fun of and bash the insanity that is P4T/CIT.

AAL175 was NOT "airborne after crash". I defer to those who have experience with such systems to address things like ACARS.

ACARS is a one-way VHF radio data transmission either from the ground, or the aircraft. There is no reasonable way for the sender to know if the message was received. If there was, I wouldn't need to call my company's MCC to set up a test message, which I have to be in the cockpit to receive and then call back the MCC to tell them if it was successful. If there was an acknowledgment, it could be done solely by the MCC with no need for a middleman. In normal flight ops, the MCC could always pick up the radio and call the aircraft on a company frequency to determine if a message was received. ACARS even has voice capability, so the pilot could simply punch the VHF 3 mic select button, switch the ACARS transmit from data to voice and say "got it, thanks".

All I know is, UAL175 exhibits an unbroken radar track on multiple systems from Logan to the WTC. No aircraft swaps, just a straight-forward termination of flight at the WTC which the rest of us witnessed live on television.

edit on 22-7-2012 by 911files because: (no reason given)

You're free to believe your official fantasy story and defend it as much as you feel like it. Even though you have no reason to defend anything if it's so water-tight eh!

That's why there are an army of people like you making ludicrous comments all over the internet!

Go try fool someone else, the facade does not work with me.

reply to post by thegameisup


So, you would prefer to ignore facts and data (not opinions) in deference to unsupported fantasy? Suit yourself.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by thegameisup

 

How embarrassing of you to bring this up. Didn't you get the memo? After several weeks of Capt. Bob stomping around the Internet beating his chest like some kind of retarded gorilla in heat touting this as the latest smoking gun that proves 9/11 was an inside job, he removed this very subject from his website because some random dude that doesn't know jack crap about aviation made him look like the complete fool that he is.

Get with the program.

Sorry to disappoint but I'm not remotely embarrassed. Just because some random person on the internet (you) says something, doesn't mean you are right. You're entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is an opinion.

Originally posted by thegameisup


Sorry to disappoint but I'm not remotely embarrassed. Just because some random person on the internet (you) says something, doesn't mean you are right. You're entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is an opinion.

You should be. You failed to go to the link were ACARS was described. If you question that source, you could always research it yourself to confirm the validity of the sources 911 Files provided you. You wont though, you are not interested in facts....you want to further your agenda of fantasy.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by thegameisup

 

How embarrassing of you to bring this up. Didn't you get the memo? After several weeks of Capt. Bob stomping around the Internet beating his chest like some kind of retarded gorilla in heat touting this as the latest smoking gun that proves 9/11 was an inside job, he removed this very subject from his website because some random dude that doesn't know jack crap about aviation made him look like the complete fool that he is.

Get with the program.

You might want to check the OP to see if this subject was "removed". Durrr...

reply to post by thegameisup

Sorry to disappoint but I'm not remotely embarrassed.

You must have misunderstood me, Capt. Bob is the one who will be embarrassed. He's the one that had to remove it from his website because he was so blatantly wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is an opinion.

It's not my opinion, it's a known fact. He removed that snafu from his website after he was proven wrong. If you don't believe me, just ask him.

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

You might want to check the OP to see if this subject was "removed". Durrr…

Good catch. I was absolutely wrong. Durrr...

I assumed that he removed it after he closed a thread down once he was exposed as a lying fraudster. My mistake. Now if we can just get Capt. Bob to admit his mistakes and remove the article from his website. Though, that may prevent the lying shyster from fleecing more money from the gullible 9/11 cult.

reply to post by Boone 870


As I said, you're entitled to your opinion, because you are speaking for you, and nobody else.

It seems the thread that you claimed was removed is still there, if in your opinion it is wrong, then contact the OP, but again, it's just your opinion, and your opinion alone. Other people are entitled to think you are wrong, like you were wrong about the post being removed, when in fact it wasn't.

Probably best to check first next time.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by thegameisup


Sorry to disappoint but I'm not remotely embarrassed. Just because some random person on the internet (you) says something, doesn't mean you are right. You're entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is an opinion.

You should be. You failed to go to the link were ACARS was described. If you question that source, you could always research it yourself to confirm the validity of the sources 911 Files provided you. You wont though, you are not interested in facts....you want to further your agenda of fantasy.

Sorry to disappoint you too old bean, but I have no agenda except finding the truth.

What's your agenda?

reply to post by ThePostExaminer

You might want to check the OP to see if this subject was "removed". Durrr...

I now see where I made my error:

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.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Again, I was in error. The topic was not removed from the site, just the front page and the latest news thread.

Let me translate the above quote from Bob Balsamo: "Our ACARS analysis never amounted to more than a big steaming pile of crap and now we are going to hide it to save ourselves from further embarrassment."

Originally posted by thegameisup
reply to post by Boone 870

 

As I said, you're entitled to your opinion, because you are speaking for you, and nobody else.

It seems the thread that you claimed was removed is still there, if in your opinion it is wrong, then contact the OP, but again, it's just your opinion, and your opinion alone. Other people are entitled to think you are wrong, like you were wrong about the post being removed, when in fact it wasn't.

Probably best to check first next time.

You know, people are entitled to "believe" anything they wish. For example, you can "believe" the Sun rotates around the Earth. Many people did for thousands of years. Only problem is, that "belief" was/is wrong. But you are still entitled to "believe" it if you wish.

Contrary to your assertion, there is objective reality beyond "belief". It is not my "belief" that the OP is hogwash. It is hogwash. The ACARS is a one way query of the system, not a response from UAL175. Radar (multiple sources and sites) show an intact radar track for UAL175 from Logan to the WTC from where it is never seen again. That is reality, that is NOT "belief".

So yeah, you are welcome to "believe" what you wish. But don't assert that reality is just a "belief". That is by definition delusion.

(n) delusion, psychotic belief ((psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary)

God, you mods are getting petty! Selective modding again eh!

Originally posted by Boone 870Good catch. I was absolutely wrong.

how embarrassing.

P4T issued a further confirmation and supplement to this story here:

It Is Conclusive - 9/11 Aircraft Airborne Well After Crash

pilotsfor911truth.org...

There are 10 remote ground stations closer to the flight path than FWA, even more if including CMI ground station in Champaign, IL which is nearly 500 miles from the Shanksville crater. However, according to Mr. Winter, United 93 received messages from CMI remote ground station in Champaign, IL more than 7 minutes after the alleged crash(1). Mr. Winter explains -

Visit link for more.

I don't know why the debunkers are claiming P4T removed it, or that the story is erroneous.