ACARS Confirmed - 9/11 aircraft airborne long after crash

[JohnyCanuck]

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - 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.

snip

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!

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html

[hack89]

1. Good job - another "smoking gun"

how many has it been now?

[spooked911]

5. not enough to convince adamant skeptics

apparently

[hack89]

9. Because you know when the "evidence" is examined carefully it will be found lacking.

like every other smoking gun.

[spooked911]

15. only because your standards of proof are ridiculous

realistically, a massive crime and cover-up is just not going to have the kind of confession or major damning piece of paper proving an inside job that you seem to expect.

Lots of evidence can get murky when given the full-on skeptic treatment. Doesn't mean it is wrong or not a smoking gun, just that it won't "satisfy" you. Except nothing ever will.

[KDLarsen]

2. Slowpokes are slow

IIRC Woodybox was posting the same thing last year.

And just like then, it's worth noting that it's messages being sent TO UA175, not a single reply was recieved. And that the ground stations have a VERY wide coverage area (something like 200nm). And that the ground stations are chosen according to the filed flightplan.

Oh, and we have radar coverage of UA175 from take off to impact. Which, like so much other evidence, is usually ignored or handwaved away as having been faked, without a single piece of proof of this fakery.

[OnTheOtherHand]

3. FWIW, the assertion is that we know these messages were received

(I'm pretty sure you know that already -- I'm just filling in for anyone who might be curious.)

P911T cites the United dispatcher who sent many of these messages, who reportedly told 9/11 Commission staffers that the time stamp at the end of each logged ACARS message is the time that it was received (which P911T takes to mean: received by the plane).

This is really unconvincing. P911T states, "An ACK or NAK should be present denoting received or failed, respectively, according to standard message formats. Unfortunately, these standard codes are not available in the above messages." Well, I don't claim to know anything about ACARS, but I did take the time to read the documentation page P911T linked to, and I call bullshit. According to the documentation, the uplink message would contain a block identifier, and the corresponding downlink message (if any) would contain a technical acknowledgement identical to the block identifier (not a binary "ACK"). Clearly the log referenced by P911T doesn't include either of those things -- or any of the field codes in an ACARS transmission as described on this page. P911T appears not to know what is logged in the log.

Presumably the time stamp indicates when the message was logged by the ground network -- not when (or whether) it was received by the airplane. The only way to get to P911Truth's conclusion is to demonstrate that messages aren't logged until they are acknowledged. (That doesn't facially make sense. Would anyone here design an email program that didn't log sent mail until and unless a receipt notification came in?) The dispatcher's paraphrased, ambiguous statement about the time stamps falls far short, especially since there is no obvious reason for him to be an expert in how ACARS logs treat messages sent to planes that no longer exist.

As for how the messages were routed, again P911Truth doesn't seem to know much.

...why would the Central Processing System ever choose PIT as the next ground station for routing purposes if the aircraft was being tracked by the ACARS network to NYC? The answer is, it wouldn't.

This is a lovely example of assuming what was to be proved. The message in question was sent about 20 minutes after UA 175 crashed (or, for the sake of argument, supposedly crashed) in New York City. How, then, could "the ACARS network" be tracking it? More generally, the authors seem not to realize how threadbare their account of the "Flight Tracking Protocol" -- based on a newsletter article that describes services available to customers, and a context-free quotation attributed to an "ACARS Expert" (is that a certification?) who happens to be a member of P911Truth -- is. Actually, P911Truth appears to have invented the phrase "Flight Tracking Protocol." This does not inspire confidence.

Charitably, it's weird that the folks at P911Truth don't seem to have much clue what would count as good evidence for their assertions, or even evidence of their basic competence. Less charitably, maybe they don't care.

[KDLarsen]

4. An interesting read, thanks for that NT

[spooked911]

7. Hmmm...not that you have a bias or anything

First, it's interesting to see what Ballinger actually said:
"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."

That seems pretty clear, no?

Second, if you look at the source material, it is clear that Mr. Ballinger would be very familiar with ACARS as part of his normal duties:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/acars/t-0148-911MFR-01090.pdf

"As for how the messages were routed, again P911Truth doesn't seem to know much."

Actually, they spend sometime explaining how they are routed in the piece.


"The message in question was sent about 20 minutes after UA 175 crashed (or, for the sake of argument, supposedly crashed) in New York City. How, then, could "the ACARS network" be tracking it?"

Umm, because it didn't actually crash there, is the obvious answer, and kept going towards Pittsburgh. Only about one of dozens of arguments against the official UA175 story.

[OnTheOtherHand]

10. no, it doesn't seem clear at all

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.

I'm happy to stipulate that in Ballinger's experience, planes seem to get the messages immediately -- but that is of absolutely no help in interpreting the time stamps. Quite the contrary. If Ballinger were aware of some delays in receiving the messages, then perhaps -- if he is familiar with the ACARS logs -- he would be in a position to know whether the time stamps indicate when the message was first sent or when the plane received (and acknowledged?) it. But if he doesn't really differentiate between when the message was sent and when the plane received it, then how can we use his comments to make that distinction?

The question isn't whether Ballinger is familiar with how ACARS "operates"; it's whether he has provided an authoritative explanation of the time stamps in the ACARS log. It is screamingly obvious that he hasn't. It is also screamingly obvious that if the ACARS logs only log uplink messages after a downlink acknowledgment, then P911Truth shouldn't have to rely on parsing Ballinger's paraphrased statement to make its point.

OTOH: More generally, the authors seem not to realize how threadbare their account of the "Flight Tracking Protocol" -- based on a newsletter article that describes services available to customers, and a context-free quotation attributed to an "ACARS Expert" (is that a certification?) who happens to be a member of P911Truth -- is. Actually, P911Truth appears to have invented the phrase "Flight Tracking Protocol." This does not inspire confidence.

spooked: Actually, they spend sometime explaining how they are routed in the piece.

:eyes:

"The message in question was sent about 20 minutes after UA 175 crashed (or, for the sake of argument, supposedly crashed) in New York City. How, then, could "the ACARS network" be tracking it?"

Umm, because it didn't actually crash there, is the obvious answer, and kept going towards Pittsburgh. Only about one of dozens of arguments against the official UA175 story.

As I said, a lovely example of assuming the conclusion. I concede that if the network was tracking UA 175 at 9:23, then it didn't crash at 9:03. I basically stated the contrapositive: if the plane crashed at 9:03, then the network wasn't tracking it at 9:23. What's missing is any evidence that the network was tracking it at 9:23, or at any time after 9:03. (Actually, I don't see any evidence that the network was tracking the flight before 9:03, either, despite the handwaving about Category A and Category B and the statement of P911Truth's ACARS Expert. As I said, pretty threadbare.) Absent such evidence, how could any reasonable observer construe "the obvious answer" to be that the plane didn't crash at 9:03?

Suppose, just as a wild hypothetical, that the network didn't receive any downlink messages after 9:03 that would enable it to fix UA175's position. If you're designing the system, there is no point in assuming that the plane has crashed, since then there isn't much point in sending messages. So, if you're designing the system, do you send all the messages via the transmitter closest to the plane's last known location -- as if, who knows, maybe it suddenly morphed into a helicopter? Or would it make more sense to use a transmitter near your best guess of where the plane is likely to be? Frankly, wouldn't it be stupid not to use flight plans as the default if no better information is available?

Even in framing the hypothetical in that manner, I'm assuming some facts about the log that aren't in evidence.

I think your last sentence is on point: apparently you perceive "dozens of arguments against the official UA175 story," so you don't see much point in scrutinizing any of them very rigorously.

[spooked911]

17. I don't follow you.

Ballinger fairly clearly says what the time-stamps mean. I'm not sure why you think it is so "screamingly obvious" that he hasn't given the "authoritative" version of what the time-stamps mean. Because you don't like the clear conclusion of what his explanation means? Or are you playing semantics with "authoritative"?

"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."

Then you write: "But if he doesn't really differentiate between when the message was sent and when the plane received it, then how can we use his comments to make that distinction?"

Didn't he just differentiate between when the message was sent and when the plane received it by saying there were two time-stamps???? I don't know if you are just purposefully obfuscating here, or you are making some really subtle point that doesn't seem to be critical to understanding this story.

[OnTheOtherHand]

24. you certainly don't

Your interpretation of this discussion is truly remarkable. Here, more than 2 1/2 years after 9/11, Ballinger and two commission staffers are discussing, inter alia, the logs of his messages, which Ballinger has provided to the staffers. So, presumably Ballinger knows that his 9:23 message to UA 175 has the time stamp at the end. In the course of the discussion, Ballinger lets loose the bombshell that the timestamp reveals the time at which the plane received the message. Apparently it occurs to no one that this revelation constitutes proof positive that UA 175 was still in the air at 9:23; no one even thinks to scrub the MFR. You and the pilots don't even seem to think that anything about this scenario is odd, or warrants any further corroboration. It's astonishing.

(By the way, specifically how could the time at which the plane received the message be logged on the ground?)

Is this interpretation necessary? Of course not. First of all, the MFR doesn't clearly indicate whether Ballinger meant that the second timestamp indicates when the plane received the message, or when the ground network received it. Second, Ballinger is a retired dispatcher, not a forensic analyst. From Ballinger's standpoint as a dispatcher, the important thing is that when he sent a message, it was "delivered... immediately," and he was "not aware of any delay." Why, then, would he know or care exactly what the timestamp in the logs meant -- and even if he did, how can we know that he was making that distinction in his comments to the staffers?

So, I mean at least two related things by "authoritative": we don't know if Ballinger had the knowledge to make the distinction, and we don't know if he actually intended to make it in that context. These issues may seem esoteric to you, but if you have ever been asked to offer an expert opinion on a scientific or technical question, they shouldn't. Hell, spooked, you're the same person who wrote "50 feet" and then got mad at me for construing that you actually, y'know, meant 50 feet. Silly me, I thought it was pretty clear that "50 feet" meant 50 feet -- and I had your words, verbatim, in context, presumably after reflection (you've had a decade to think about this, and arbitrarily long to compose and revise your post). I would characterize your approach as "selective literalism," except that your interpretation of Ballinger isn't even literal.

Call me cynical, but I suspect that if one of the staffers had asked Ballinger point-blank whether that timestamp meant that UA175 must have received the 9:23 message -- and he had said that, no, it didn't mean that -- you would discount his response. Indeed, I suspect that that is how "the official story" operates in your thinking: you tend to ignore anything that you construe as corroborating it, whereas you see no need to corroborate anything that you construe as rebutting it. At least, that is how I try to comprehend your apparent indifference about locating anyone who is unambiguously in a position to explain how those timestamps were generated. Why, we already know that, because this is how truth is established: it slips out. No need to ask people directly; in particular, no need to ask people who surely would know. :shrug:

[spooked911]

25. Clearly, your baseline assumption is that flight 175 hit the tower and that if any data deviates

from that, then you find a way to discredit that argument.

My baseline is that I'm not sure what really happened with flight 175 (for a number of reasons, I doubt the official story, as I've discussed here over the years). With my baseline in mind, this story on the face, is evidence that flight 175 didn't crash into the WTC.

In terms of the MFR, the timestamps of the 9:23 message are not shown or discussed; it's not clear that they even realize that the 9:23 message has a received time. What do they even need to scrub here?

Note-- what do you think the second time is for, if not showing receipt? Why would an ACARS message show the time the message hit the ground station? Presumably this is instantaneous. The important part that would be on the message if when the plane received it. This is logical. If nothing else, there should at least be two receipt times-- one for the plane and one for the ground station. It seems logical that if there is one receipt time shown, that it is the received time for the plane.

how could the time at which the plane received the message be logged on the ground?
Presumably some kind of ping-back signal. This is not so hard to assume, given other types of modern communications.

As far as Ballinger, there is no reason to discount his knowledge of ACARS.

(As far as the 50 feet point, clearly that was just to note the difference in width between the tower and the 767 wingspan, assuming they wanted to get the maximal effect effect of the plane impact-- by getting the complete plane within the width of the tower. Yes, there is more leeway if you count banking the plane, but that isn't going to change the calculation dramatically, and the banking makes the piloting trickier.)

if one of the staffers had asked Ballinger point-blank whether that timestamp meant that UA175 must have received the 9:23 message -- and he had said that, no, it didn't mean that -- you would discount his response.

Not necessarily. I probably wouldn't pay much attention to this evidence unless someone else with ACARS familiarity said he was lying. It's intriguing evidence but it's not like inside job or even no planes rests on this.

But why do I think that if Ballinger said directly "that timestamp meant that UA175 must have received the 9:23 message", you would say he was full of shit and find ways to discredit him???? Or that we would just simply never hear about this?

Keep in mind, Ballinger retired right after 9/11. Perhaps he was just too stressed after what happened, or maybe he knew something was up and was forced into retirement. Who knows what he really knows or thinks?

[OnTheOtherHand]

27. projection much?

My baseline is that I'm not sure what really happened with flight 175...

You're not? You at least seem to be fairly sure what didn't really happen with flight 175, and you have discounted a great deal of eyewitness and video evidence in forming your opinion.

I "find a way to discredit" your arguments not because of my assumptions, but because your arguments are weak. If that timestamp demonstrates that UA175 was aloft at 9:23, you should have had better evidence of that fact years ago.

In terms of the MFR, the timestamps of the 9:23 message are not shown or discussed; it's not clear that they even realize that the 9:23 message has a received time. What do they even need to scrub here?

Seriously?!

I grant that "it's not clear" exactly what they realize -- and that is much more your problem than mine. However, they explicitly discuss the timestamps (at least, I think that's the premise of your argument), and they explicitly discuss the 9:23 message. If you don't think they realize that the 9:23 message has a timestamp, how do you think they know that any of the others do? Maybe Ballinger is talking about something else entirely?!

Note-- what do you think the second time is for, if not showing receipt? Why would an ACARS message show the time the message hit the ground station? Presumably this is instantaneous.

It looks to me as if United generated free-text messages that included times and senders, and then the log generated a timestamp. When the log generates a timestamp is a matter of conjecture, but saying that it must be when the plane received the message is not on. Especially because....

how could the time at which the plane received the message be logged on the ground?
Presumably some kind of ping-back signal. This is not so hard to assume, given other types of modern communications.

True that. So, on that theory, presumably the time would be when the ground network received the ping-back, yes?

See, at this point I'm not convinced that you really believe that the timestamp shows when the plane received the message, never mind that I should believe it. It might be when the ground network receives the message, when it first sends the message, when it receives the (hypothesized) ping-back, or who knows what-all else.

As far as Ballinger, there is no reason to discount his knowledge of ACARS.

I haven't discounted his knowledge of ACARS; I've tried to delineate its likely extent. Your failure to address my arguments is noted.

(As far as the 50 feet point, clearly that was just to note the difference in width between the tower and the 767 wingspan...

No, it isn't clear at all. What's clear is that there was more than 50 feet leeway. At a 38-degree angle, you're off by at least 30 feet. At any rate, most of the plane appears to have hit right of center.

As for the bank, isn't that sort of what one would expect if the pilot noticed he was right of center and tried to correct? Believe it or not, in my experience most people who look at the damage profile don't say to themselves, "Wow, that was amazingly precise flying" -- perhaps because it doesn't appear to have been amazingly precise flying.

But why do I think that if Ballinger said directly "that timestamp meant that UA175 must have received the 9:23 message", you would say he was full of shit and find ways to discredit him???? Or that we would just simply never hear about this?

Well, that's an interesting question, and invites some personal speculation that I will try to eschew.

I don't even know what the last part of this means. If you had credible evidence that the timestamp proves that UA175 was still in the air, how would it be in my power that "we would just simply never hear about this"?

Keep in mind, Ballinger retired right after 9/11. Perhaps he was just too stressed after what happened, or maybe he knew something was up and was forced into retirement. Who knows what he really knows or thinks?

"Who knows what he really knows or thinks?" Dude, this is the guy whose paraphrased comments from 2004 you're relying on. Wouldn't it be fair to say, then, that in your view Ballinger is only credible if and when (in your view) he impeaches the "official story," not when he supports it?

[spooked911]

31. some responses

"If that timestamp demonstrates that UA175 was aloft at 9:23, you should have had better evidence of that fact years ago."

Sorry, are you referring to UA175 being aloft at 9:23am or about the timestamp indicating this?

"I grant that "it's not clear" exactly what they realize -- and that is much more your problem than mine. However, they explicitly discuss the timestamps (at least, I think that's the premise of your argument), and they explicitly discuss the 9:23 message. If you don't think they realize that the 9:23 message has a timestamp, how do you think they know that any of the others do? Maybe Ballinger is talking about something else entirely?!"

I think it's a problem for YOU-- when YOU claim that they should have realized the implications of the 9:23 receipt timestamp. If they didn't specifically note this, they could be blissfully unaware of this evidence.

I think they only discuss the 9:23 message in terms of why Ballinger sent it, if 175 crashed into the tower. Answer-- he didn't know that was the official story at that point.

I believe they were discussing timestamp simply in the context of whether the aircraft typically got the message right away or if there was some delay, and probably specifically about his warning about cockpit intrusion.

"See, at this point I'm not convinced that you really believe that the timestamp shows when the plane received the message, never mind that I should believe it. It might be when the ground network receives the message, when it first sends the message, when it receives the (hypothesized) ping-back, or who knows what-all else."

It's not a matter of "belief". This is prima facie evidence (in the absence of someone saying the ACARS logs don't show the plane receipt time) that the plane was aloft at 9:23. This fits well with other evidence that 175 didn't really hit the south tower, imo.

Again, imo, the receipt time makes more logical sense as being critical info that should be in the message log.

I'll stop there to keep this from being any more cumbersome than it already is.

[spooked911]

8. By the way, it was actually Ballinger who sent the messages

so he should know something about how ACARS works. Nor is it clear from your perusing of the technical documentation that the necessary message was sent of non-acknowledgement. Indeed, if the message wasn't received, then it is automatically resent. Not clear that these were resent.

Also, kind of funny that Ballinger sends the message that two aircraft have hit the WTC-- TO FLIGHT 175, the flight he is supposed to be monitoring!

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. you could stand to read more closely...

OTOH: P911T cites the United dispatcher who sent many of these messages....

spooked: By the way, it was actually Ballinger who sent the messages....

Gee, ya think?

(I said "many" because -- well, surely you've put enough time into this to know why. Right?)

Again, the issue isn't whether Ballinger "know(s) something about how ACARS works."

Nor is it clear from your perusing of the technical documentation that the necessary message was sent of non-acknowledgement. Indeed, if the message wasn't received, then it is automatically resent. Not clear that these were resent.

You're almost making sense. Indeed it isn't clear that the messages were resent. Is it clear that the messages weren't resent? I've seen very few hard facts about what these logs actually log.

Also, kind of funny that Ballinger sends the message that two aircraft have hit the WTC-- TO FLIGHT 175, the flight he is supposed to be monitoring!

Apparently that's one of over a dozen identical messages that he sent to his planes within a two-minute period. You think he should have paused to consider whether to take 175 off the list? to the extent that it's sort of suspicious that he didn't? Really?

[spooked911]

6. radar coverage were likely faked during the wargames going on

that inserted false radar blips onto controller's screens

[KDLarsen]

12. Primary radar coverage, not the filtered bit ATCO's see N/T

[defendandprotect]

13. +1000% --

[hack89]

14. They would never insert fake contacts into ATC radar

military radars yes - ATC no. Why? The FAA has nothing to do with military exercises.

[spooked911]

16. here we go again

it's not that simple, and you know it.

Why would NEADS ask the Boston ATC if the hijack was "real world or exercise", if the civilian ATC had nothing to do with the exercise?

[hack89]

19. What does that have to do with radar injects?

Radar injects seem to be a Truther fantasy - certainly no one has shown any evidence that they happened.

Why do you need injects if they were using real planes?

[spooked911]

26. how then, do you imagine that ATC would know of the exercises?

-- if not for injects? Why would NEADS ask the controllers if the controllers had nothing to do with the exercises?

[hack89]

35. There is no indication that the ATC knew about the exercise

here is the actual conversation:

08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. , we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

The TMU is not asking questions about any exercise - why not? NEADS was probably aware of the exercises but not the TMU. Besides - if it was a sim track the ATC would have known it was a sim track.

[spooked911]

36. why would they ask the ATC if this was an exercise if there was no expectation

that the ATC knew about an exercise?

[hack89]

37. Does it sound for a second like the ATC is confused between real and sim?

he not asking questions - he is telling NEADS he has real hijack.

The NEADS guy is just making sure - in his experience he has had plenty of exercises not a single real highjack.

[spooked911]

38. again, though

it really strains credulity to think the NEADS officer would ask that if the ATC had nothing to do with the exercise.

[zappaman]

39. again, though

have you stopped to think that just maybe...you might be the ONLY ONE who finds this odd???
I have no problem with it and it seems like no one else does either.
So, once again, everyone else is wrong and you are the ONE...the ONLY ONE...who knows the truth!

Edited to fix:bad grammar

[hack89]

40. Why didn't the ATC say "this is not an exercise" up front?

that's the real question.

[OnTheOtherHand]

41. on the contrary, it is very credible

Nothing is more human than to look for a reason why bad news might not be true. In this case, the NEADS officer has an obvious candidate.

"Is this real-world or exercise?" just isn't much of a tell. Most of us who have (1) received bad news and (2) watched movies can imagine ourselves asking that in similar circumstances -- even if we didn't know of an exercise, never mind what we thought the person we were talking with knew. It's a natural elaboration on "Really?"

[KDLarsen]

42. Why?

It took all but a few seconds to get a rather crucial piece of information out of the way, leaving the NEADS officer with no doubt that he was dealing with a real world situation. Given that a large part of military day-to-day workings consist of running excercises, why blame him for taking the brief time to check?

[BeFree]

18. Right, hack

No one could ever imagine they would insert fake contacts.

Give it a rest.

[hack89]

20. Well, it would be helpful if you could provide some real evidence

that false targets were injected into any radar system. It is been 10 years with no evidence.

[BeFree]

21. You don't read much?

Coupla months ago was testimony about those what they called SIMS... for simulated bogies on the radars.

No need to bend over and kiss your ass, hack, just think and read some more before making a damn fool of yourself, would be my advice.

[zappaman]

22. Real evidence?

Cool.
Please provide a link.
I'm anxious to see it!

[hack89]

23. So lets see the link

to see the facts and the context.

Remember we are talking about the ATC system - I understand they would most likely put sim tracks in military systems.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

28. On 911 they were informed

[hack89]

30. Informed of what? nt

[mrarundale]

29. Initially, there were no flights 11 and 77 scheduled

then the BTS records changed. Also, isn't ACARS optional and initiated by the plane crew? It is difficult to determine what the exact truth is, but the lies are pretty easy to suss out. The plane impact footage is either fake looking or non-existent and many of the passengers appear to be manufactured. Therefore, the planes and hijackers are in all likelihood a lie.

[sgsmith]

32. Problem with that

Is that there are plane impact videos which are of high quality, with sound, and have multiple people saying "plane" shortly after, and before, impact.

[KDLarsen]

33. False

The BTS data was incomplete because the flights were never completed, ie. they never landed at their destination. The BTS is not a timetable, it's a collection of statistics as they relate to transportation.

[zappaman]

34. Wow

Just wow.