ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER …

Navigation

Join

DVD's

Pilots For Truth Forum

Main Page

American 77 (Pentagon)

American 11 (NorthTower)

United 175 (South Tower)

United 93 (Shanksville,PA)

Multimedia/Links

Credentials andExperience

List of Members

Latest News/Articles

WTC related

Part Two - IT ISCONCLUSIVE - 9/11AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELLAFTER CRASH

More information hassurfaced whichconclusively demonstratesthe aircraft reportedlyused on 9/11, wereairborne well after theiralleged crashes. Thisarticle supplements ourlast, "ACARS CONFIRMED -9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNELONG AFTER CRASH" inwhich the ACARS system isexplained as well as howto determine if a messagewere received by theaircraft, along with howground stations areselected through FlightTracking Protocol based onmessages routed to United175, N612UA. We nowhave further evidencewhich places United 93,N591UA, in the vicinity ofChampaign, IL, 500+ milesaway from the allegedcrash site in Shanksville,PA. This information isfurther corroborated by a(now former) UnitedAirlines Manager of FlightDispatch Michael J.Winter.

read more...

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONGAFTER CRASHUNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG ANDPITTSBURGH, PA

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Aircraft CommunicationsAddressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is adevice used to send messages to and from anaircraft. Very similar to text messages and emailwe use today, Air Traffic Control, the airlineitself, and other airplanes can communicate witheach other via this "texting" system. ACARS wasdeveloped in 1978 and is still used today. Similarto cell phone networks, the ACARS network hasremote ground stations installed around the worldto route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, tothe aircraft depending on it's location and viceversa. ACARS Messages have been providedthrough the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA)which demonstrate that the aircraft receivedmessages through ground stations located inHarrisburg, PA, and then later routed through aground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after theaircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower inNew York. How can messages be routed throughsuch remote locations if the aircraft was in NY,not to mention how can messages be routed to anaircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutesearlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touchedon this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through theexcellent research of "Woody Box", who initiallydiscovered such alarming information in thereleased FOIA documents(1). We now have furtherinformation which confirms the aircraft was not inthe vicinity of New York City when the attacksoccurred.

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG... http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRC...

1 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

These are the 'text' (ACARS) messages in question-

The format for these messages is pretty straightforward. To limit the technical details, we willexplain the most important parts of the messages,however, for full Message Block Format Codestandards, click here. The remote ground station(MDT in the message below) used to route themessage to the aircraft, the time and date inwhich the message is sent (111259, meaning the11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flightnumber (UA175), and the tail number of theairplane in which the message is intended(N612UA), are all highlighted in red. Theunderlined date and time is when the messagewas received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11,at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to UnitedFlight 175, tail number N612UA,routed through the MDT remoteground station (HarrisburgInternational Airport, also known asMiddleton).

DDLXCXASFOLMCHI58RSFOFRSAM.SFOLMUA111259/JERCMDANN612UA/GLMDT-QUSFOLMUA1UA175BOSLAXI HEARDOF AREPORTEDINCIDENTABOARDYOURACFT.PLZVERIFYALLISNORMAL....THX777SAMSFOLMJERRYTSEN

;09111259


2 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

1085750543

This message was sent on Sept 11,at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, the timeof the crash) to United Flight 175,tail number N612UA, routed throughthe MDT remote ground station(Harrisburg International Airport,also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXACHIAKCH158R.CHIAKUA111303/EDCMDANN612UA/GLMDT-QUCHIYRUA1UA175BOSLAX-MESSAGEFROMCHIDD -HOW ISTHERIDE.ANYTHINGDISPATCHCAN DOFORYOU...CHIDDEDBALLINGER

;091113031085750545

This message was also sent on Sept11, at 1303Z (9:03AM Eastern, thetime of the crash) to United Flight175, tail number N612UA, routedthrough the MDT remote groundstation (Harrisburg InternationalAirport, also known as Middleton).

DDLXCXA


3 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

CHIYRCH158R.CHIYRUA111303/ADCMDANN612UA/GLMDT-QUCHIYRUA1UA175BOSLAX-MESSAGEFROMCHIDD -NYAPROACHLOOKINFOR YAON127.4CHIDDADROGERS

;091113031085750546

This message was sent on Sept 11,at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20minutes after the time of the crash)to United Flight 175, tail numberN612UA, routed through the PITremote ground station (PittsburghInternational Airport).

DDLXCXACHIAKCH158R.CHIAKUADA111323/EDCMDANN612UA/GLPIT-QUCHIYRUA1UA175BOSLAX-MESSAGEFROMCHIDD -


4 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

/BEWAREANYCOCKPITINTROUSION:TWOAIRCAFTIN NY .HITTRADE CNTERBUILDS...CHIDDEDBALLINGER

;091113231085750574

If one references the standard message blockcodes linked above, you will notice that a"Technical Acknowledgement" section should bepresent in ACARS messages. What this means, isthat the ACARS system can confirm if the sent'text' messages have been received or not withoutrequiring any crew input to manually acknowledgethe message was received. Similar to an emailwhich may have bounced back, or your cell phonetelling you that your text message failed to send,this automatic technical acknowledgement wouldlet the reader know the message failed receipt, orif it were received. An ACK or NAK should bepresent denoting received or failed, respectively,according to standard message formats.Unfortunately, these standard codes are notavailable in the above messages. However,according to a Memorandum For The Record(2)quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the secondtime stamp on the bottom of the message, atUnited Airlines, is the "TechnicalAcknowledgement" from the airplane that themessage has been received -

Mr.Ballingerstatedthat theACARSmessageshavetwotimeslisted:the timesent andthe time


5 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

received.Hestatedthatonce hesendsthemessageit isdeliveredto theaddressedaircraftthroughAIRINCimmediately.He is notaware ofanydelay intheaircraftreceivingthemessageafter hesends it.

According to the above statement made by Mr.Ballinger, all of the above messages were receivedby the aircraft.

The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messageshave been received by the aircraft. According to aanother Memorandum For The Record (MFR), fourACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to UnitedFlight 175. The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19ZAdispatcher-initiatedmessagethatreachedtheplanebut notcrewacknowledgedstating "Iheard ofareportedincident."1259:29Additional


6 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

dispatcher-initiatedmessage1259:30Additionaldispatcher-initiatedmessage1303:17Rogers-initiatedmessagenotreceivedby theaircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, wasreceived by the aircraft, but not crewacknowledged, which is not required as technicalacknowledgements are automatic. This isreferring to the message noted above sentthrough MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARSmessage at top). The second (1259:29Z) and thirdmessages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR werenot provided through the FOIA. The last message(1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed tonot have been received by the aircraft accordingto the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have istheir word, which contradicts the statement madeby Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgementtime stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARSmessage is included above, third from the top. Ofcourse, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if thelast message was received by the airplane as thatwould immediately indicate to anyone that theairplane did not crash into the South Tower at09:03am.

It is interesting to note that the Commissionignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by EdBallinger routed through MDT (second ACARSmessage printed above), yet claims the 9:03ammessage sent by Rogers as not being received.Based on sequential numbers of the messagesthemselves, it is clear Ballinger's 9:03 messagewas sent before the Rogers message (0545 forBallinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed onbottom of the message), yet the Commissionignores Ballinger's message. Why would theyignore Ballinger's message, yet acknowledgeRogers? Is it because Ballinger's message wasreceived by the airplane and they realized that anaircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at thatdistance and such low altitude? This message ismore evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity ofHarrisburg, and not NY. At least 3 ACARS messages


7 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

were routed through MDT between 8:59 and9:03am, and received by the airplane, accordingto the technical acknowledgement time stamps atthe bottom of the messages.

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed throughPittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the9/11 Commission as well. Although important toknow whether the messages were received, it isequally if not more important to understand howthey are routed, received or not.

ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards forcommunications in the United States. ARINC is aprovider of the communication protocol for ACARSnetworking. As ACARS networks are to CellPhones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon orAT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft,or the ground, the message needs to be routedthrough remote ground stations as describedabove. Many remote ground stations (RGS) arelocated throughout the world. Here is a diagramof some of the stations located in the NortheastUSA.

Click To Enlarge

Comprehensive List Of ACARS Remote GroundStations Worldwide - scribd source link - Page 100

If you get on an airplane in say Chicago, headedfor NY, you turn off your cell phone and off yougo. When you arrive in NY, you turn on your cellphone and see you have a message waiting. Wasthis message routed through a cell tower inChicago? No, you would never receive it, nor be


8 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

alerted that you have a message waiting. It isrouted through a cell tower in NY. How does thecell network know where you are?

Although not exactly the same, but similar to howcell phones track your phone based on location,choosing the best cell towers to route messages toyour phone, ACARS networks track the aircraft inflight and know where the aircraft is in order toroute messages to the aircraft (or vice versa)through the best remote stations on the ground.When a message is sent from the ground or inflight, it is routed through a Central ProcessingSystem. This system determines the best routingto a ground station based on the aircraft location.Two types of flight tracking (or flight following)protocols are used for this process. Category Aand B(5).

First is Category A. This type of flight followinguses Flight Tracking messages automatically sentfrom the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes.These messages are a data link and do not containany text, therefore the customer airline does notreceive these messages, they are used for FlightTracking purposes only. When the Flight Trackingmessage is sent, the Central Processing System(CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sentthrough and picks the three best stations forrouting messages to and from the aircraft. Afterroughly 10 minutes, another Flight Trackingmessage is sent from the aircraft, through a newset of ground stations in the vicinity of it's newlocation, and the Central Processing Systemdumps the old stations and replaces it with newstations better for routing messages to theaircraft. This process continues throughout theflight automatically.

The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, isa bit more simple. The aircraft continuouslymonitors all stations as it travels on it's course.The Central Processing System continuouslychooses the best station for routing purposeswhile the aircraft is in flight. If the flight planroute is amended in flight, and a diversion isnecessary, the Central Processing System choosesa new remote ground station along the divertedflight path based on this flight tracking protocol,tracking the aircraft.

The reason for this type of flight tracking,Category A and B, is due to the fact aircraft divertfrom their flight plans all the time, daily. Somehave argued that MDT and PIT were chosen forground station routing due to the original plannedroute of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARSrouting was based on original flight planned route,


9 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

aircraft diverting from their original route offlight would not be able to communicate viaACARS as they would quickly leave the areas inwhich remote ground stations have been chosen,rendering the network useless for the airline, andmost importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially,many aircraft were diverted from their originalflight plans. If the ACARS network was solelybased on flight planned route, 100's if notthousands of aircraft, would not have been ableto communicate with their company and/or ATCvia ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARScommunication is a valuable asset to facilitateaircraft operations and flight safety, and the skieswould never have been cleared as quickly asreported.

Some have further gone on to speculate thatUnited Airlines Dispatchers routed the messagesthemselves based on flight planned route. FlightTracking protocol as described renders thisargument moot as the Dispatcher does not havecontrol over ARINC routing of ACARS messagesthrough remote ground stations. This type ofpremise is the equivalent of saying that when youcall someone from your cell phone, you have thecapability to choose which cell tower around theworld you want your call to be routed. It's absurd.But for the sake of argument, we will explore thishypothesis.

Dispatch Operations Centers monitor flighttracking of the aircraft in near real time on anAirspace Situational Display (ASD). The UnitedAirlines ASD is refreshed every 60 secondsaccording to another Memorandum For The Recordreleased by the 9/11 Commission(4)

WhenaskedaboutthetechnicalcapabilitiesoftheASD(airspacesituationaldisplay)programusedbythedispatchersontheirmonitors


10 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

totrackplanes,allUnitedrepresentativesconferredthattheprogram'sdisplayrefreshesevery60seconds.

.....

McCurdyrecollectedthatatthetimeofthecrashintotower2,thedisplayonBallenger'smonitorstillshowedUAL175at31,000ft,havingjustdeviatedfromthenormalflightplanandheadingintoabigturnback


11 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

east.

The reason Dispatchers have an ASD is due to thefact the aircraft across the globe deviate fromtheir cleared flight plans daily due to weather,traffic, etc. With an ASD, Dispatchers can keeptrack of their flights and alert for weather (orother adverse conditions) along the route. Even ifDispatchers had the capability to choose whichspecific ground station to route a message, whywould they choose MDT and then later PIT if theaircraft is diverting back to the east on theirmonitors? The answer is, they wouldn't. Thehypothesis that Remote Ground Station routing isbased on original flight plan is completely absurdand usually attempted by only those whoobviously are not interested in the facts, insteadneed to speculate to hold onto their beliefs. Asdescribed, the Central Processing System routesmessages through remote ground stations basedon Flight Tracking Protocol(5).

These are the ACARS remote ground stationlocations as compared with the flight path ofUnited 175, including the diversion from the flightplanned route due to the alleged "hijacking". Anoverlay of the RADES Radar data, also providedthrough FOIA, has been included to show thelocation of the Target Aircraft (TA) for the timewhen the first message was sent throughHarrisburg. PA (MDT) and received by the aircraft,at 08:59:AM.

"ConvergedwithTargetAircraft"radartrackshowingwherethetracksactuallyconvergewith"UA175"canbeviewedin9/11Intercepted,orherebasedonthe


12 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

RADESRadarDataprovidedthroughFOIA(ClickImageToEnlarge)

.

Distances from the Target Aircraft to the relativeRemote Ground Stations (RGS) are included.

As you can see, there are many stationssurrounding the Target Aircraft which are muchcloser to the aircraft than MDT out in Harrisburg,PA. Twelve stations to be exact,

1. ABE2. EWR3. MMU4. JFK5. LGA6. TEB7. PHL8. HPN9. ISP10. ILG11. ACY


13 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

12. AVP

All of which are nearly half the distance to theTarget Aircraft than MDT is presently at 08:59 AM.

There is no possible reason for the CentralProcessing System (CPS) to have chosen MDT forrouting purposes based on Flight Tracking protocoldescribed above, if this Target Aircraft truly wereUnited Flight 175, N612UA. The twelve otherstations would have had to been skipped over, andfor some reason the CPS chose MDT way out inPennsylvania. Another argument (read:speculation) is that all those other stations were"congested" at the time which is why the CPSchose MDT. First, in order for this to be true, allthose stations would have to be "congested" atleast four times over. As demonstrated by the MFRreferenced above, as many as 4 messages wererouted through MDT. What are the odds that all 12ground stations were "congested" each and everytime? This argument, if not absurd, is moot aswhen the CPS determines the best ground stationbased on flight tracking protocol, the message isplaced into a queue routed through the beststation and then sent in the order it was received.ACARS messages are not very large in terms ofbytes. Multiple messages can be sent in less thana second. It is logical to queue the messages at aremote ground station which is closer to theaircraft than to route a message through a groundstation much further away in which the aircraftmay not receive based on distance and altitude.Ground stations can send messages up to 200miles, but this is only guaranteed if the aircraft isabove 29,000 feet, as stated in the MFR sourcedabove.

When asked how the ACARS network chooses aRemote Ground Station for routing messages to anaircraft, FDR, Radar, ACARS Expert and ElectricalEngineer Dennis Cimino had this to say,

The aircraft areconstantly in contactwith whatever groundstation is nearest toit, more or less in'data link' mode,sendingacknowledgementsback and forth. Incases where multiplestations on the groundare within range, thedropped packetnumbers decide whichground station gets


14 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

the priority. not assophisticated asN.T.D.S. (navaltactical data systems)but pretty close tothat.

On a more 'system'level, the groundstations are more orless in spreadspectrum constanttransmit mode likecell phones now use,so they won't step oneach othercontinually. when anaircraft receiver's MDS(minimum discerniblesignal) sensitivity isachieved or reachedout of the 'tangential'noise floor level, theaircraft's receiverthen begins to try todata frame sync withthe ground. then oncethat happens and twoway 'ping pong' asdata link personsrefer to it, happens,then any queuedmessages get shippedto the receivingsystem and datarelative to theaircraft's flight getsent back down to theground.

This corroborates the Flight Tracking Protocol asoutlined above based on a July 2002 Newsletterpublished by ARINC titled The Global Link(5).

Now that it is understood there were many groundstations which should have been chosen by theCPS before routing messages through MDT, whywould the Central Processing System ever choosePIT as the next ground station for routingpurposes if the aircraft was being tracked by theACARS network to NYC? The answer is, it wouldn't.

It is possible all messages can be fabricated, butthat would attract multiple felony charges as wellconsidering the information was provided throughthe Freedom Of Information Act and used asevidence to support the claims made by the 9/11Commission. Pilots For 9/11 Truth encourage


15 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

readers to contact an ARINC Specialist in yourarea to confirm or refute the above evidenceoffered. Contact information for an ARINC officenear you can be located through a simple googlesearch. Feel free to direct them to this site andarticle.

Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reasonthe Central Processing System would choose toroute messages through the ground stationslocated at MDT, then later PIT, over the numerousground stations much closer and surrounding NYC,is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of MDT,and then later, PIT. This means that the aircraftobserved to strike the south tower, was notUnited 175.

"Converging Aircraft " radar tracks showing thetargets converging can be viewed in

9/11 Intercepted, or here based on the RADESRadar Data provided through FOIA

(Click Image To Enlarge)

All aircraft converging above can be viewed in theRADES Data or 9/11: Intercepted

This evidence strengthens previous evidenceuncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard767 cannot remain in control, stable or holdtogether at the speeds reported by the NTSB forthe South Tower aircraft(6). So, if UA175 was


16 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraftwas observed to strike the south tower, and astandard 767 cannot perform at such excessivespeeds as reported, then where did the airplanecome from which was observed to strike the SouthTower? That is a great question and the reason weare still here after 10 years attempting to getanswers for the day that changed our world, andwill never go away until those questions areanswered.

Send this evidence to your CongressRepresentative, your Senators, Judges, Lawyers,print it out and hand it to your pilots whenboarding a flight (Pilots love reading materialwhile in cruise). Call into talk shows, tell themabout this evidence. Grab our DVD's and makecopies, hand them to friends, family, co-workers,etc. Demand a new investigation into the eventsof 9/11. The 9/11 Families, The 9/11 Victims, TheAmerican People, The World, deserves to knowTruth about what happened on September, 11,2001.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is agrowing organization of aviation professionalsfrom around the globe. The organization hasanalyzed Data provided by the NationalTransportation Safety Board (NTSB) for thePentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA andthe World Trade Center Attack along with otherinformation provided by several governmentagencies through the Freedom Of Information Act.The data does not support what we have beentold. Government Agencies refuse to comment.Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory orpoint blame at this point in time. However, thereis a growing mountain of conflicting informationand data in which government agencies andofficials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11Truth continues to grow and exist only throughyour continued support. We thank you!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html for fullmember list.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/join to join.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/store to help supportPilots For 9/11 Truth continued operations andresearch.

Read Part Two of this article here.

(1) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Team7_Box13_UAL_ACARS.pdf - 12.9mb pdf(2) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/t-0148-911MFR-01090.pdf (bottom of page 6) -1.3mb pdf


17 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

Copyright © 2006-2011 PilotsForTruth. All RightsReserved.

[email protected]

(3) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/Miles_Kara_MFR.pdf - 681kb pdf(4) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/mfr-dispatch-track-asd.pdf - 900kb pdf(5) http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/GLOBAL_LINK.pdf - Use Of Tracker Messages InCategory A ACARS Networks, page 6, 174kb pdf(6) 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade CenterAttack Aircraft Analyzed -http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed


18 of 18 27.6.2012 17:31

Documents

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER …