You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

ACARS Confirmed - 9/11 aircraft airborne long after crash [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-01-11 04:04 PM
Original message
ACARS Confirmed - 9/11 aircraft airborne long after crash
Advertisements [?]
( - Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) is a device used to send messages to and from an aircraft. Very similar to text messages and email we use today, Air Traffic Control, the airline itself, and other airplanes can communicate with each other via this "texting" system. ACARS was developed in 1978 and is still used today. Similar to cell phone networks, the ACARS network has remote ground stations installed around the world to route messages from ATC, the airline, etc, to the aircraft depending on it's location and vice versa. ACARS Messages have been provided through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) which demonstrate that the aircraft received messages through ground stations located in Harrisburg, PA, and then later routed through a ground station in Pittsburgh, 20 minutes after the aircraft allegedly impacted the South Tower in New York. How can messages be routed through such remote locations if the aircraft was in NY, not to mention how can messages be routed to an aircraft which allegedly crashed 20 minutes earlier? Pilots For 9/11 Truth have briefly touched on this subject in 9/11: Intercepted through the excellent research of "Woody Box", who initially discovered such alarming information in the released FOIA documents(1). We now have further information which confirms the aircraft was not in the vicinity of New York City when the attacks occurred.


This evidence strengthens previous evidence uncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard 767 cannot remain in control, stable or hold together at the speeds reported by the NTSB for the South Tower aircraft(6). So, if UA175 was somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraft was observed to strike the south tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the airplane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower? That is a great question and the reason we are still here after 10 years attempting to get answers for the day that changed our world, and will never go away until those questions are answered.

Send this evidence to your Congress Representative, your Senators, Judges, Lawyers, print it out and hand it to your pilots when boarding a flight (Pilots love reading material while in cruise). Call into talk shows, tell them about this evidence. Grab our DVD's and make copies, hand them to friends, family, co-workers, etc. Demand a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The 9/11 Families, The 9/11 Victims, The American People, The World, deserves to know Truth about what happened on September, 11, 2001.

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center Attack along with other information provided by several government agencies through the Freedom Of Information Act. The data does not support what we have been told. Government Agencies refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials refuse to acknowledge. Pilots For 9/11 Truth continues to grow and exist only through your continued support. We thank you!

Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -ACARS Confirmed - 9/11 aircraft airborne long after crash JohnyCanuck  Dec-01-11 04:04 PM   #0 
  - Good job - another "smoking gun"  hack89   Dec-01-11 06:00 PM   #1 
  - not enough to convince adamant skeptics  spooked911   Dec-02-11 09:56 AM   #5 
     - Because you know when the "evidence" is examined carefully it will be found lacking.  hack89   Dec-02-11 11:06 AM   #9 
        - only because your standards of proof are ridiculous  spooked911   Dec-03-11 07:00 PM   #15 
  - Slowpokes are slow  KDLarsen   Dec-02-11 03:05 AM   #2 
  - FWIW, the assertion is that we know these messages were received  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-02-11 08:51 AM   #3 
  - An interesting read, thanks for that NT  KDLarsen   Dec-02-11 09:26 AM   #4 
  - Hmmm...not that you have a bias or anything  spooked911   Dec-02-11 10:09 AM   #7 
  - no, it doesn't seem clear at all  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-02-11 12:34 PM   #10 
     - I don't follow you.  spooked911   Dec-03-11 07:16 PM   #17 
        - you certainly don't  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-04-11 08:44 AM   #24 
           - Clearly, your baseline assumption is that flight 175 hit the tower and that if any data deviates  spooked911   Dec-04-11 01:43 PM   #25 
              - projection much?  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-04-11 03:14 PM   #27 
                 - some responses  spooked911   Dec-05-11 01:06 PM   #31 
  - By the way, it was actually Ballinger who sent the messages  spooked911   Dec-02-11 10:20 AM   #8 
     - you could stand to read more closely...  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-02-11 12:59 PM   #11 
  - radar coverage were likely faked during the wargames going on  spooked911   Dec-02-11 09:58 AM   #6 
     - Primary radar coverage, not the filtered bit ATCO's see N/T  KDLarsen   Dec-02-11 03:52 PM   #12 
     - +1000% --  defendandprotect   Dec-03-11 12:18 AM   #13 
     - They would never insert fake contacts into ATC radar  hack89   Dec-03-11 03:32 PM   #14 
        - here we go again  spooked911   Dec-03-11 07:02 PM   #16 
        - What does that have to do with radar injects?  hack89   Dec-03-11 09:30 PM   #19 
           - how then, do you imagine that ATC would know of the exercises?  spooked911   Dec-04-11 01:45 PM   #26 
              - There is no indication that the ATC knew about the exercise  hack89   Dec-06-11 07:52 AM   #35 
                 - why would they ask the ATC if this was an exercise if there was no expectation  spooked911   Dec-06-11 11:05 AM   #36 
                    - Does it sound for a second like the ATC is confused between real and sim?  hack89   Dec-06-11 11:48 AM   #37 
                       - again, though  spooked911   Dec-07-11 07:22 PM   #38 
                          - again, though  zappaman   Dec-07-11 08:41 PM   #39 
                          - Why didn't the ATC say "this is not an exercise" up front?  hack89   Dec-07-11 09:47 PM   #40 
                          - on the contrary, it is very credible  OnTheOtherHand   Dec-08-11 06:33 AM   #41 
                          - Why?  KDLarsen   Dec-08-11 11:24 AM   #42 
        - Right, hack  BeFree   Dec-03-11 07:28 PM   #18 
        - Well, it would be helpful if you could provide some real evidence  hack89   Dec-03-11 09:33 PM   #20 
           - You don't read much?  BeFree   Dec-03-11 09:45 PM   #21 
              - Real evidence?  zappaman   Dec-03-11 10:54 PM   #22 
              - So lets see the link  hack89   Dec-04-11 08:24 AM   #23 
        - On 911 they were informed  Rosa Luxemburg   Dec-04-11 03:35 PM   #28 
           - Informed of what? nt  hack89   Dec-04-11 04:42 PM   #30 
  - Initially, there were no flights 11 and 77 scheduled  mrarundale   Dec-04-11 04:31 PM   #29 
     - Problem with that  sgsmith   Dec-05-11 01:39 PM   #32 
     - False  KDLarsen   Dec-05-11 03:25 PM   #33 
     - Wow  zappaman   Dec-05-11 05:55 PM   #34 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC