you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You are very far behind if you take the commission report as truth.

Whoa. Your conspiracy theory has just grown by thousands who are involved in the conspiracy. Do you think it's surprising that no one has leaked? At all?

I'm guessing you've never managed a project?

The data proves they were drones.

Link me to this data.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There are thousands of officals, even former CIA and intel officials that have or had worked for US corp that proclaim that the offical narrative of 9/11 is fraudulent and that the commission report was a cover-up; even former NIST employees came out and sided with Architechs and Engineers for 9/11 truth. The official Straussian mythos that you parrot is what Trump and all the treasonous Zionist parrots.

First, read these books:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51t2tUPu5GL._SL350_.jpg

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51fTgGHE+VL._SY346_.jpg

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41r3icjoL5L._SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_ML2_.jpg

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51G1lPebj-L._SY346_.jpg

https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/i/m/AC905484FBADF0A36F4A30A17391D36E35C5693A.jpg

https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/i/m/374416860A394E8C49F0C8A099719F84D8863009.jpg

https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/m/b96a90f8b69797b4fbd12c16c331dd7bd56d5fca.jpg

https://img.thriftbooks.com/api/images/m/fd813f8d3475925629a64285c7aaa98cb01b6228.jpg


Okay, now about the planes.

  • The holding pattern the F-15's from Otis AFB where put in, officially claimed to have occurred between 9:08 – 9:13, actually occurred earlier and was made necessary because the pilots UNEXPECTEDLY flew faster than the conspirators planned.

  • The unexpected 41 minute delay of flight 93 made the 9:21 false 'phantom 11' report necessary because it was Flight 93 that the F-16s from Langley were suppose to out chasing to draw them away from Washington, D.C. to allow Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon.

  • Langley's Supervisor of Flying, Capt Borgstrum was ordered to fly in an UNARMED F-16 to ensure there was no Supervisor of flying during the Langley scramble. This resulted in the F-16 being sent out over the Atlantic and unreachable!

  • NORAD officials made the mistake of repeating the original plan to the 9/11 Commission (Langley scrambled because of Flight 93 – which hadn't even been hijacked yet!). A de facto confession.

https://archive.li/dOnKx

^ ^ ^ That article reveals that two different "Flight 11" departed from Boston Logan on September 11th.

From 11-22-1963:

"In this 2010 article, the 9/11 Commission reveals that passengers boarded Flight 11 when it had already pushed back How? The final report lies about the boarding data update intervals, calling these times "approximate only"" :

These boarding times from the American system are approximate only; for flight 11 they indicated that some passengers boarded after the aircraft had pushed back from the gate.

"Of course, it's not possible for passengers to board after the plane has pushed back from the gate. What the Commission is claiming here is that if someone boarded at e.g. 7:37, that's rounded up and recorded as 7:50. This is hard to believe."

"In actuality, the boarding data is approximate to within ±15 seconds, not 15 minutes as the Commission would have you believe. The reservation status of a passenger is checked every 15 minutes, but when boarding begins, the EGR system updates in 15 second intervals."

"The passengers boarded a DIFFERENT Flight 11 (the real one) which departed from Gate 26. The SABRE data indicates that Wail and Waleed al-Sheri boarded at 7:31, so boarding probably started at 7:30 and lasted until 7:55 or 8:00."

"Another discrepancy: several passengers and crew (i.e. Richard Ross, Al Filipov and Amy Sweeney) called their families before boarding to tell them that Flight 11 would be delayed. But Flight 11 departed from the gate on time at 7:45, according to the official story. How is this possible?"

"The answer must be that it's a different plane. Al Filipov himself called his wife from the Boston Airport lounge at 7:45. To walk from there to Gate 32 would probably take at least five minutes or more, by which time he'd discover that Flight 11 had already left the gate. So he must've boarded a different plane (specifically, at gate 26) with a later boarding time."

https://web.archive.org/web/20010913185306/http://www.cbsnews.com/earlyshow/healthwatch/healthnews/20010913terror_russian.shtml

Interestingly, the data shows the al-Sheri brothers (two of the accused hijackers) boarding the plane. My answer, if the planes did not have real hijackers? They were playing "hijacker" roles assigned to them in a live-fly exercise. I think the plane departing from Gate 32 was a drone. There were live-fly hijack exercises taking place through-out the week of September 11th. Vigilant Guardian was one of them, in that year's scenario.

I can understand how the flight crew could go along with such a drill, but I'm not sure how random passengers would get involved. By all accounts, the passengers thought they'd be flying a regular flight (for example, Ross was frustrated the plane was delayed because he had to arrive at L.A. for a business meeting).

No passengers from Flight 11 made phone calls (odd, since the airphone system was allegedly working on American Airlines 757s at the time), but passengers from the other hijacked flights did.

That is, the passengers boarded the real, registered aircraft. Looking at the evidence we have, it's certainly wrong according to the official story, in terms of which gate Flight 11 is said to have left from (which is Gate 32). I've long believed that real passenger airliners were swapped with drones on 9/11.

The FAA could only track the drone flights on their radar. En-route facilities don't have what's called "radio direction finding" to determine the origin of radio calls. The airlines tracked the actual registered aircraft through ACARS (the ground station stamps on the print-outs indicating the plane's rough location) and the aircraft situation display.

Interestingly though, NEADS Col. Robert Marr told the 9/11 Commission that he saw United 93 circling over Chicago on radar (or some other source, but it wasn't ACARS). United 93 was never near Chicago's airspace in the official story. So Marr somehow knew that this plane "circling" over Chicago was the real United 93. I don't know if he was getting this information from a superior, if he had some kind of overlay on the display which told him, but he knew where United 93 was. That information wasn't available to the air traffic controllers, because they were fooled by the transponder code changes.

ATC didn't have time to check which planes were flying that day. "United 177" was reported hijacked at 9:25 (along with United 175), but it was later found to be "held at the gate" even though its departure was scheduled in the evening.

The FAA definitely had the filed flight plans for all aircraft flying that day, including those in the live-fly exercises. Somebody filed the correct flight plan for the real passenger aircraft. But, I think this aircraft flew under a different call sign to air traffic control.

According to this document: https://kapitalgate.files.wordpress.com/2021/05/ads-b-guide_jferrera.pdf

Typically, the data block will show the aircraft “Call Sign” (N # or Flight Id) which comes from the filed aircraft flight plan which is matched to the aircraft by the squawk code transmitted by the aircraft.

In normal civil aviation, the transponder squawk has to match the filed flight plan for the aircraft.

The user "Non-equilibrium" posted this:

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,973481,00.html

Military flights involved in covert operations (e.g. the BCCI-connected drug and gun running) disguised themselves as regular civilian flights by altering their transponder code. I think something similar happened on 9/11, possibly through what's called a FAKER exercise (under NORAD).

In the scenario I'm thinking of, the real plane with the flight plan for "American 11" would alter its transponder code (I believe on Mode-S) so it would identify as, e.g. "American 265", and it would call out that identity to ATC. The drone duplicate which was meant to crash into a target could have its transponder code altered remotely, so it would identify as "American 11" to ATC on its data block. So the two planes would definitely have different call signs. But the real aircraft has the flight plan for the route its meant to be flying (e.g. BOS → LAX).

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2010/11/was-flight-93-part-of-military-hijack.html

http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2011/03/was-flight-11-real-world-exercise.html

Webster Tarpley's chart of drills taking place in the months leading up to 9/11, and on day of:

https://www.tarpley.net/docs/drills_of_911.pdf

Tarpley also has a book, 9/11: Synthetic Terror, which is freely available to read. It talks about the various drills which made the 9/11 operation possible, e.g. weakening the air defence by diverting fighters from alert bases to over Alaska, Nevada, and so on.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Here's one example: It reveals the bank would fly drone aircraft in place of real commercial flights. They would change the transponder codes to imitate real flights.

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/printout/0,8816,973481,00.html

"The plane then departed for Czechoslovakia, taking the place of a scheduled Pakistan International Airlines commercial flight that was aborted at the last minute by prearrangement. The 707's radar transponder was altered to beep out the code of a commercial airliner, which enabled the plane to overfly several countries without arousing suspicion. "

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The Hijackers Part 1


There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators.

What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I’ve heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks—invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes.

A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how “easy” it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the “open sky”. But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot.

And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport by themselves are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11.

For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers.

In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot — and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft.

The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs—even landings, to a certain degree—are relatively “easy”, because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist “outside” the cockpit.

But once you’ve rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues, and is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.)

In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted “hard” instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying “blind”, I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn’t have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as “IFR”, or Instrument Flight Rules.

And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that’s all you have!

The corollary to Rule #1: If you can’t read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you’re as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots — I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots — who ‘bought the farm’ because they ‘lost it’ while flying in IFR conditions.

Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 — an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student’s first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get.

Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.

In fact, here’s what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators:

Mohammed Atta: “His attention span was zero.”

http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission_Hearing.htm

Khalid Al-Mihdhar: “We didn’t kick him out, but he didn’t live up to our standards.”

http://100777.com/node/237

Marwan Al-Shehhi: “He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls.”

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm

Salem Al-Hazmi: “We advised him to quit after two lessons.”

http://www.willthomas.net/Books_Videos/911_Investigations_Stand_Down.htm

Hani Hanjour: “His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I’m still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all.”

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html

Now let’s take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour presumably rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little chap with a box cutter—Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let’s ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade.

Imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain’s seat. The weather reports say it was fairly clear, so let’s say Hanjour experienced a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet — 7 miles — below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of any significant surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second).

In a real-world scenario, with this kind of “situational NON-awareness”, Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan—he wouldn’t have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was.

After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there’s little point in looking outside—there’s nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed.

Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he’d be faced with a bewildering array of instruments—nothing like he had seen in a Cessna 172. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position.

After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target.

It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn’t have known where to begin.

But, for the sake of discussion let’s stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour—whose flight instructor claimed “couldn’t fly at all”—somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before.

Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes—remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments).

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The Hijackers Part 2


In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these fellows even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments.

To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn’t relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let’s assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended—and invisible—target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77’s flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio.)

According to FAA radar controllers, “Flight 77” then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which “Hanjour” allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn’t have spelt the word if his life depended on it).

The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O’Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, “The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.” (http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=4084)

And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him.

But even that wasn’t good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his “missile” was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon—and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men’s lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing).

I shan’t get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Indeed, the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown entire semi-trucks off the roads this massive aircraft is alleged to have flown over at extremely low altitude. The DVD, “Loose Change – 1st Edition” (http://www.loosechange911.com) contains an excellent clip of trucks being swept off the end of a runway when a jetliner powers up for take-off.

Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH.

The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile.

Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon’s ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground. Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot.

At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan—until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings.

In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles—and the Global Hawk.)

The very same challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their “final approach” maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft.

The author recently received a letter from a senior 757 captain currently flying with one of the airlines involved in 9/11. It contains the following statement:

“Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the ‘hijacker’s’ final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a ‘hit’. How these rookies who couldn’t fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension.”

CONCLUSION

The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers “took control” of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they’d realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.

If they weren't at the airports on Sept 11 2001, they couldn't have hijacked the planes. There is exactly zero time and date stamped security images of any of the 19 at any of the 3 airports the 4 planes departed from. This despite each airport having hundreds of cameras covering every area. The absolute "best" you can find is 5 of the 19 at Dulles. This video has no time and date stamps. It is also supposed to be just after 7 am in September when the sun will just be rising yet there is bright sunlight visible behind them. It still leaves 14 unaccounted for. So they were either invisible or could teleport, at least that's what the official conspiracy theory requires you to believe to accept it.

In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH — and all this under extremely stressful circumstances.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Also, this is a decent in depth investigatory blog on 9/11 worth reading which has been scrubbed by google:

Todd Beamer's Odd Phone Call and the Silent Crash of Flight 93:

https://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2007/10/todd-beamers-odd-phone-call-and-silent.html

And the FBI's 'TwinBomb' investigation, yup, the FBI actually referenced bombing the twin towers. What did they find? Hundreds of Mossad agents.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

United 93 received 18 ACARS uplinks after alleged Shanksville crash: CONFIRMED


http://911woodybox.blogspot.com/2012/10/united-93-received-18-acars-uplinks.html

This article is long and detailed, but it's well worth reading! It may take a few reads to get through. It did for me. I'll provide a summary of key points.

In order to rule out a plane-swap scenario, the three data sets of RADES radar data (the radar tracks of the flights), air traffic control records, and ACARS (ground-to-air data) should perfectly agree with one another. However, they do not agree. The United Airlines ACARS print-outs strongly indicate that the addressed plane in question was still airborne long after its alleged crash.

The same case for United 175. This evidence supports the plane-swap hypothesis – a sort of 21st century "Operation Northwoods". The ACARS data states that the addressed plane "N591UA" (the registration # of United 93) was in the vicinity of Champaign, Indiana at 10:11 a.m.

Three common objections to the ACARS data are:

  • The plane did not acknowledge the messages because it did not receive them (Stutt's objection, which is dealt with in the article).

  • The ground station printed in the ACARS print-out reflects the pre-planned flight route. This is an unproven, and quite frankly, nonsensical claim.

  • Crashed airliners are capable of receiving ground-station uplinks. This was actually stated as fact by a popular debunker, "Oystein", on JREF forums.

These three objections contradict the known functions of the ACARS protocol set. The "ARINC 618 Air-Ground-Protocol" document is the authoritative source on the ACARS downlink routines, and no indication is offered in the document that:

  • planes which do not acknowledge ACARS messages have not received them (This claim ignores a common problem with plain CSMA algorithm in ACARS protocol). If we assume that the messages weren't acknowledged because "N591UA" crashed (i.e. out of radio contact), the ARINC file would not contain UBLKS post-10:03, and the system would return an IPCUL 231 NO STATION TO response.

  • airlines can manually select which ground-station to send an ACARS uplink from (to the contrary, the selection process is hard-wired and automatic)

  • crashed planes can receive messages (the notion is absurd)

Crucial to our argument is that a crashed plane cannot perform link tests (or "handshakes") with a ground station. Why? Because, as "Woody Box" states:

Each Telex transmission (like ACARS is based on) is initiated by a so-called handshake: a synchronization process between sender and receiver to enable and optimize the transmission of the actual message. This requires an exchange of data between sender and receiver before dispatching the message.

Obviously, a crashed, defunct plane can't exchange data with another party.

This seems implied in the Boeing Avionics manual:

Upon receiving a message, the DSP (ground system) "handshakes" with the aircraft Communications Management function according to the ACARS air-ground protocol.

The significance of the 18 post-10:03 uplinks is that, as the author states:

[a] sent ULBLK (uplink) implies a successful handshake; a successful handshake implies a good VHF connection; a good VHF connection implies that the plane is within line-of sight or at least almost line-of sight of the ground station; and a line-of-sight condition implies that the plane is airborne (exception: the plane is grounded at the airport where the sender is sited – but this was not the case for United 93 at 10:11).

TL;DR: United 93 / N591UA was still airborne after 10:06 a.m. (I put 10:06 because of the debate over a 10:03 /10:06 crash-time).

"Woody Box" also proposes a plausible solution for the failed acknowledgement of the 18 post-10:03 uplinks. In short, it's likely due to the plain-CSMA algorithm which was in use on September 11th, and the "hidden transmitter" problem which corrupts the subsequent downlinks from the aircraft. He speculates that "N591UA" was flying at a low altitude, hence the hidden transmitters in its flight path. I speculate further that it was preparing to land, as IPCUL 231 NO STATION TO are reported after 10:14 a.m. The blog author states that "231" was reported because the output buffer was empty.

"Woody Box" is an excellent researcher. He pretty much single-handedly offered us strong evidence for an Operation Northwoods-like scenario, from a mere couple dozen posts on his blog.

Yet, I do think his analysis of the ACARS data flow's partly incorrect. IPCUL 231 is an immediate rejection (i.e. failed hand-shake), not IPCUL 311. The fact that it appeared so soon after the last 311 error (see message No. 20) seems to me that the plane was no longer airborne, otherwise the hand-shake would succeed (unless it were out of radio contact in-air, in which case a new station would've been selected.) He even states himself that 311 is only sent after 9 unacknowledged uplinks.

Woody Box provides an example of American 11 receiving UBLKs while idling at the airport, so it's possible that United 93 had landed somewhere by 10:12, and disabled CMU by 10:14. That's how I would explain the "231" errors, anyhow. But upon re-reading the last few paragraphs, I think he and I are on the same page.

When paired with this article from another researcher, which examines the ACARS uplink sent to United 175 at 9:51, it's in my view among the best evidence that 9/11 was indeed a false flag, and indirect evidence that drones were used in the attacks. My thinking goes like this:

Planes still airborne past their supposed crash times → Flights were duplicated → (Indirect) Drones struck the Towers and Pentagon → only a State has the resources to co-ordinate an operation with that implied level of complexity and complicity (elements within NORAD, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the national security state in general...etc.) → 9/11 was a false flag.

http://911acars.blogspot.com/2012/03/ed-ballinger-and-uplink-sent-to-united.html