Search This Blog

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

USA+china vs Europe - Airline WAR countdown - 3 days to go.

Airlines face EU pollution bill from New Year

By Christian Spillmann (AFP) – 1 hour ago

BRUSSELS — Airlines will have to buy pollution permits to fly in
Europe from January 1 under a disputed EU system to fight climate
change, but slumping carbon market prices could make the bill less

The cap-and-trade scheme, which has angered the US and Chinese
governments and airlines worldwide, comes into force on Sunday after
the European Union's highest court rejected a challenge brought by US
carriers this month.

The Airlines for America association grudgingly indicated that its
members would abide by the EU law, but "under protest" while pursuing
legal options. Chinese airlines plan to file a complaint in a German
court this week.

For now, buying a permit through the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)
will be much cheaper than paying a fine for ignoring the rules.

Prices in the carbon market have fallen dramatically to eight euros
($10.4) per tonne of CO2, after fluctuating in the past few years
between 15 and 25 euros.

Refusing to comply would cost an airline 100 euros per tonne, with the
possibility of being denied the right to land in the 27-nation EU in
extreme cases.

"Airlines must understand that the price of CO2 will probably
increase, but they are free to decide when they will buy permits,"
Isaac Valero, spokesman for EU climate change commissioner Connie
Hedegaard, told AFP.

Launched in 2005 in a bid to reduce carbon emissions, the ETS has been
applied to 11,000 power stations and industrial plants across Europe.

If firms get below their emissions ceiling, they can sell the surplus
on the ETS. If they are above it, they can meet their quota by buying
what they need in the marketplace.

The EU decided to include airlines, responsible for 3.0 percent of
global emissions, in the system in the absence of a global agreement
to cap aviation emissions.

Airlines will only have to pay for 15 percent of their emission
allowances in 2012, amounting to 256 million euros under current
market prices. They will have to pay for 18 percent from 2013.

Airlines denounce the system as a new tax and warn that it would cost
the industry 17.5 billion euros ($23.8 billion) over eight years.

The European Commission says the scheme could add between 4.0 and 24
euros ($32) to the price of a two-way transatlantic flight, if
airlines choose to pass the cost on to passengers.

"This is not a tax. It's a market," a commission official said.

"The price for permits reflects the market reality. For now it is low
because of the (debt) crisis and a surplus of permits, but the
European Union will do everything to increase it," the official said.

The commission has proposed taking between 500 million and 800 million
tonnes of CO2 out of the market in 2012, while the EU parliament is
seeking a cut of 1.4 billion tonnes -- this would drive a price

The airline ETS system is going ahead despite a plea by US Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton for the EU to halt or delay its application.
She also warned of "appropriate action" if it is enforced, raising
fears of a trade war.

A commentary by China's official Xinhua news agency warned last week
the EU scheme "infringes on national sovereignty, violates
international aviation treaties and will lead to a trade war" in the

China's four main airlines and the China Air Transport Association
(CATA) have decided to take the matter to court in Germany.

"The positive thing in this decision is that the Chinese have chosen
the legal route rather than retaliation," said a European official.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

happy Xmas - Iran did the 9/11 attacks -- LOL !!

I thin everyone by now knows that 911 was done by secret team in the
US Navy and CIA and the USA military.
Nobody else has the power to a) carry them out b) cover up the
evidence c) prevent the story from being told.

The USA got their wars, and 10 years of top dollar.

The not altogether irrational Iranian President has stated that there
should be an investigation in the 2001 attacks,
because there is much evidence pointing to an inside job. FYI

press release MARKET WATCH

Dec. 23, 2011, 1:00 p.m. EST

U.S. District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks

NEW YORK, Dec. 23, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- A federal district
court in Manhattan yesterday entered a historic ruling that reveals
new facts about Iran's support of al Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. U.S.
District Judge George B. Daniels ruled yesterday that Iran and
Hezbollah materially and directly supported al Qaeda in the September
11, 2001 attacks and are legally responsible for damages to hundreds
of family members of 9/11 victims who are plaintiffs in the case.

Judge Daniels had announced his ruling in Havlish, et al. v. bin
Laden, et al., in open court on Thursday, December 15, 2011, following
a three-hour courtroom presentation by the families' attorneys. Judge
Daniels entered a written Order of Judgment yesterday backed by 53
pages of detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

Fiona Havlish, whose husband Donald perished in the World Trade Center
North Tower on 9/11 said, "This is a historic day. For ten years we've
wanted the truth to be known about who was responsible for our losses.
Now we have that answer."

Ellen Saracini, the wife of United Airlines 175 pilot Victor Saracini,
which the hijackers crashed into the WTC South Tower, said after the
hearing last Thursday, "We just came from Judge Daniels' court where
he ruled in favor of holding accountable those who perpetrated the
attacks of 9/11... I just smiled up to Victor and I said we're still
thinking about you ... we're there for you ... we'll always be there
for you. But today's very special."

In Havlish, et al. v. bin Laden, et al., Judge Daniels held that the
Islamic Republic of Iran, its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hosseini
Khamenei, former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and
Iran's agencies and instrumentalities, including, among others, the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps ("IRGC"), the Iranian Ministry of
Intelligence and Security ("MOIS"), and Iran's terrorist proxy
Hezbollah, all materially aided and supported al Qaeda before and
after 9/11.

"The families have waited a very long time for this day and they have
been through a lot. So I was greatly relieved that the families
received an answer to the question that they asked me ten years ago:
they asked who was the responsible party? How did this happen? Today a
federal court judge has said that a principal responsible party is the
Islamic Republic of Iran," said Thomas E. Mellon, Jr. of Doylestown,
Pennsylvania, law firm of Mellon Webster & Shelly, the lead attorney
for the Havlish plaintiffs.

The evidence was developed over a seven-year international
investigation by the Havlish attorneys who pursued the 9/11
Commission's recommendation regarding an apparent link between Iran,
Hezbollah, and the 9/11 hijackers, following the Commission's own
eleventh-hour discovery of significant National Security Agency
("NSA") intercepts: "We believe this topic requires further
investigation by the U.S. government." 9/11 Commission Report, p. 241.
The Havlish evidence included sworn testimony and affidavits from the

Ten expert witnesses including three former 9/11 Commission staff
members, two former CIA case officers, two investigative journalists,
and an Iran analyst who has testified in 25 cases involving Iranian

Three Iranian defectors who were operatives of MOIS and the IRGC.
Witness X, whose dramatic testimony was previously filed under seal,
was revealed to be Abolghasem Mesbahi, a former MOIS operative in
charge of Iran's espionage operations in Western Europe. Judge Daniels
found that Mesbahi has testified in numerous prosecutions of Iranian
and Hezbollah terrorists, including the Mykonos case in Germany and
the AMIA case in Argentina, and found to be highly reliable and
credible. Judge Daniels also credited Mesbahi's testimony that he
received messages during the summer of 2001 from inside the Iranian
government that an Iranian contingency plan for unconventional warfare
against the U.S. called "Shaitan dar Atash" had been activated. "This
is compelling proof that Iran was deeply involved in the 9/11
conspiracy," said Tim Fleming, lead investigative attorney for the
Havlish group.

Included among Judge Daniels' findings in Havlish are the following:

Members of the 9/11 Commission staff testified that Iran aided the
hijackers by concealing their travel through Iran to access al Qaeda
training camps in Afghanistan. Iranian border inspectors refrained
from stamping the passports of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers because
evidence of travel through Iran would have prevented the hijackers
from obtaining visas at U.S. embassies abroad or gaining entry into
the United States. The 9/11 Commission Report addressed these facts
and called for further investigation. 9/11 Commission Report at pp.

Expert and U.S. government evidence also confirmed that Iran
facilitated the escape of al Qaeda leaders and members from the U.S.
invasion of Afghanistan into Iran and provided safe haven inside Iran
after 9/11.

Abolghasem Mesbahi testified he was part of an IRGC-MOIS task force
that designed contingency plans for unconventional warfare against the
U.S., code-named "Shaitan dar Atash" ("Satan in Flames") which
included crashing hijacked passenger airliners into the World Trade
Center, the Pentagon, and the White House. During the weeks before
9/11, Mesbahi received three coded messages from a source inside
Iran's government indicating that the Shaitan dar Atash plan had been

Mesbahi also testified that in 2000 Iran used front companies to
obtain a Boeing 757-767-777 flight simulator for training the
terrorists. Due to U.S. trade sanctions, Iran has never had any Boeing
757-767-777 aircraft, but all the airplanes hijacked on 9/11 were
Boeing 757 or 767 aircraft.

A May 14, 2001 memorandum from inside the Iranian government
demonstrating that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was
aware of the impending attacks and instructing intelligence operatives
to restrict communications to existing contacts with al Qaeda's Ayman
al Zawahiri and Hizballah's Imad Mughniyah.

Documents obtained from German federal prosecutors showing that 9/11
coordinator Ramzi Binalshihb traveled to Iran in January 2001 on his
way to Afghanistan to brief Osama bin Laden on the plot's progress.

Evidence from the 9/11 Commission Report that a "senior Hezbollah
operative," which the Havlish evidence identifies as Hezbollah
terrorist chief Imad Mughniyah, coordinated activities in Saudi Arabia
and was present (or his associate) on flights the hijackers took to
and from Beirut and Iran. 9/11 Commission Report at pp. 240-41.
Mughniyah, a longtime agent of Iran, orchestrated a string of terror
operations against the U.S. and Israel during the 1980s and 1990s. He
was assassinated in Syria in February of 2008.

Attorneys emphasized that it is important to understand that Iran,
Hezbollah, and al Qaeda formed a terror alliance in the early 1990s.
The attorneys cited their national security and intelligence experts,
including Dr. Patrick Clawson, Dr. Bruce Tefft, Clare Lopez, Kenneth
Timmerman, Dr. Ronen Bergman, Edgar Adamson, and 9/11 Commission staff
members Dietrich Snell, Dr. Daniel Byman, and Janice Kephart, as well
as the published writings of Robert Baer, to explain how the pragmatic
terror leaders overcame the Sunni-Shi'a divide in order to confront
the U.S. (the "Great Satan") and Israel (the "Lesser Satan"). Iran and
Hezbollah then provided training to members of al Qaeda in, among
other things, the use of explosives to destroy large buildings. The
Iran-Hezbollah-al Qaeda alliance led to terror strikes against the
U.S. at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia (1996), the simultaneous U.S.
embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania (1998), and the USS Cole
(2000). Shortly after the Cole attack, Iran was facilitating the
international travel of the 9/11 hijackers.

"It was a wonderful day. A great day where the truth was finally
revealed in a court of law with strong, strong evidence. The judge
allowed us to put on and present all the evidence that we had filed
directly or under seal and he accepted it and made a ruling in our
favor," said Dennis Pantazis, one of the Havlish attorneys. "Now we go
on to prove damages for each one of the family members," he added.

The case is Fiona Havlish, et al v. Usama Bin Laden, et al, 03-CV-9848
(GBD), and is part of the consolidated proceeding In Re Terrorist
Attacks on September 11, 2001, Civil Action No. 03 MDL 1570 (GBD).

For full story information, background documents, and links to
broadcast quality footage, including soundbites from Havlish attorneys
and plaintiffs, please visit the case website at .

SOURCE Mellon Webster & Shelly

Thursday, December 01, 2011

911 plane "United 175" DID NOT CRASH IN WTC (monitored after!!)

2009 FIRST REPORT on Airplane receiving messages AFTER crash
"Flight 175 was duplicated: Threefold Confirmation")


( - 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.

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

The format for these messages is pretty straight forward. To limit the technical details, we will explain the most important parts of the messages, however, for full Message Block Format Code standards, click here. The remote ground station (MDT in the message below) used to route the message to the aircraft, the time and date in which the message is sent (111259, meaning the 11th of Sept, at 1259Z or 0859 Eastern), the flight number (UA175), and the tail number of the airplane in which the message is intended (N612UA), are all highlighted in red. The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane.

This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1259Z (8:59AM Eastern) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the MDT remote ground station (Harrisburg International Airport, also known as Middleton).


;09111259 108575 0543


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

.CHIAKUA 111303/ED

;09111303 108575 0545


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

.CHIYRUA 111303/AD

;09111303 108575 0546


This message was sent on Sept 11, at 1323Z (9:23AM Eastern, 20 minutes after the time of the crash) to United Flight 175, tail number N612UA, routed through the PIT remote ground station (Pittsburgh International Airport).


;09111323 108575 0574


If one references the standard message block codes linked above, you will notice that a "Technical Acknowledgement" section should be present in ACARS messages. What this means, is that the ACARS system can confirm if the sent 'text' messages have been received or not without requiring any crew input to manually acknowledge the message was received. Similar to an email which may have bounced back, or your cell phone telling you that your text message failed to send, this automatic technical acknowledgement would let the reader know the message failed receipt, or if it were received. 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. However, according to a Memorandum For The Record(2) quoting United Dispatcher Ed Ballinger, the second time stamp on the bottom of the message, at United Airlines, is the "Technical Acknowledgement" from the airplane that the message has been received -

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.

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

The 9/11 Commission has claimed which messages have been received by the aircraft. According to a another Memorandum For The Record (MFR), four ACARS messages were sent between 8:59AM and 9:03AM on the morning of Sept 11, to United Flight 175. The MFR reads as follows(3) -

1259:19Z A dispatcher-initiated message that reached the plane but not crew acknowledged stating "I heard of a reported incident."
1259:29 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1259:30 Additional dispatcher-initiated message
1303:17 Rogers-initiated message not received by the aircraft

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic. This is referring to the message noted above sent through MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARS message at top). The second (1259:29Z) and third messages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR were not provided through the FOIA. The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARS message is included above, third from the top. Of course, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if the last message was received by the airplane as that would immediately indicate to anyone that the airplane did not crash into the South Tower at 09:03am.

It is interesting to note that the Commission ignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by Ed Ballinger routed through MDT (second ACARS message printed above), yet claims the 9:03am message sent by Rogers as not being received. Based on sequential numbers of the messages themselves, it is clear Ballinger's 9:03 message was sent before the Rogers message (0545 for Ballinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed on bottom of the message), yet the Commission ignores Ballinger's message. Why would they ignore Ballinger's message, yet acknowledge Rogers? Is it because Ballinger's message was received by the airplane and they realized that an aircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at that distance and such low altitude? This message is more evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity of Harrisburg, and not NY. At least 3 ACARS messages were routed through MDT between 8:59 and 9:03am, and received by the airplane, according to the technical acknowledgement time stamps at the bottom of the messages.

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.

ACARS Networks are based on ARINC Standards for communications in the United States. ARINC is a provider of the communication protocol for ACARS networking. As ACARS networks are to Cell Phones, think of ARINC as perhaps a Verizon or AT&T. When a message is sent from the aircraft, or the ground, the message needs to be routed through remote ground stations as described above. Many remote ground stations (RGS) are located throughout the world. Here is a diagram of some of the stations located in the Northeast USA.

Click To Enlarge

Comprehensive List Of ACARS Remote Ground Stations Worldwide

If you get on an airplane in say Chicago, headed for NY, you turn off your cell phone and off you go. When you arrive in NY, you turn on your cell phone and see you have a message waiting. Was this message routed through a cell tower in Chicago? No, you would never receive it, nor be alerted that you have a message waiting. It is routed through a cell tower in NY. How does the cell network know where you are?

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

First is Category A. This type of flight following uses Flight Tracking messages automatically sent from the aircraft, typically every 10 minutes. These messages are a data link and do not contain any text, therefore the customer airline does not receive these messages, they are used for Flight Tracking purposes only. When the Flight Tracking message is sent, the Central Processing System (CPS) recognizes which stations it has been sent through and picks the three best stations for routing messages to and from the aircraft. After roughly 10 minutes, another Flight Tracking message is sent from the aircraft, through a new set of ground stations in the vicinity of it's new location, and the Central Processing System dumps the old stations and replaces it with new stations better for routing messages to the aircraft. This process continues throughout the flight automatically.

The second type of Flight Tracking, Category B, is a bit more simple. The aircraft continuously monitors all stations as it travels on it's course. The Central Processing System continuously chooses the best station for routing purposes while the aircraft is in flight. If the flight plan route is amended in flight, and a diversion is necessary, the Central Processing System chooses a new remote ground station along the diverted flight 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 divert from their flight plans all the time, daily. Some have argued that MDT and PIT were chosen for ground station routing due to the original planned route of flight, BOS to LAX. However, if ACARS routing was based on original flight planned route, aircraft diverting from their original route of flight would not be able to communicate via ACARS as they would quickly leave the areas in which remote ground stations have been chosen, rendering the network useless for the airline, and most importantly, the aircraft. On 9/11 especially, many aircraft were diverted from their original flight plans. If the ACARS network was solely based on flight planned route, 100's if not thousands of aircraft, would not have been able to communicate with their company and/or ATC via ACARS. Chaos would have ensued as ACARS communication is a valuable asset to facilitate aircraft operations and flight safety, and the skies would never have been cleared as quickly as reported.

Some have further gone on to speculate that United Airlines Dispatchers routed the messages themselves based on flight planned route. Flight Tracking protocol as described renders this argument moot as the Dispatcher does not have control over ARINC routing of ACARS messages through remote ground stations. This type of premise is the equivalent of saying that when you call someone from your cell phone, you have the capability to choose which cell tower around the world you want your call to be routed. It's absurd. But for the sake of argument, we will explore this hypothesis.

Dispatch Operations Centers monitor flight tracking of the aircraft in near real time on an Airspace Situational Display (ASD). The United Airlines ASD is refreshed every 60 seconds according to another Memorandum For The Record released by the 9/11 Commission(4)

When asked about the technical capabilities of the ASD (airspace situational display) program used by the dispatchers on their monitors to track planes, all United representatives conferred that the program's display refreshes every 60 seconds.


McCurdy recollected that at the time of the crash into tower 2, the display on Ballenger's monitor still showed UAL 175 at 31,000 ft, having just deviated from the normal flight plan and heading into a big turn back east.

The reason Dispatchers have an ASD is due to the fact the aircraft across the globe deviate from their cleared flight plans daily due to weather, traffic, etc. With an ASD, Dispatchers can keep track of their flights and alert for weather (or other adverse conditions) along the route. Even if Dispatchers had the capability to choose which specific ground station to route a message, why would they choose MDT and then later PIT if the aircraft is diverting back to the east on their monitors? The answer is, they wouldn't. The hypothesis that Remote Ground Station routing is based on original flight plan is completely absurd and usually attempted by only those who obviously are not interested in the facts, instead need to speculate to hold onto their beliefs. As described, the Central Processing System routes messages through remote ground stations based on Flight Tracking Protocol(5).

These are the ACARS remote ground station locations as compared with the flight path of United 175, including the diversion from the flight planned route due to the alleged "hijacking". An overlay of the RADES Radar data, also provided through FOIA, has been included to show the location of the Target Aircraft (TA) for the time when the first message was sent through Harrisburg. PA (MDT) and received by the aircraft, at 08:59:AM.

"Converged with Target Aircraft" radar track showing where the tracks actually converge with "UA175" can be viewed in 9/11 Intercepted, based on the RADES Radar Data provided through FOIA
(Click Image To Enlarge)


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

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

1. ABE
2. EWR
3. MMU
4. JFK
5. LGA
6. TEB
7. PHL
8. HPN
9. ISP
10. ILG
11. ACY
12. AVP

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

There is no possible reason for the Central Processing System (CPS) to have chosen MDT for routing purposes based on Flight Tracking protocol described above, if this Target Aircraft truly were United Flight 175, N612UA. The twelve other stations would have had to been skipped over, and for some reason the CPS chose MDT way out in Pennsylvania. Another argument (read: speculation) is that all those other stations were "congested" at the time which is why the CPS chose MDT. First, in order for this to be true, all those stations would have to be "congested" at least four times over. As demonstrated by the MFR referenced above, as many as 4 messages were routed through MDT. What are the odds that all 12 ground stations were "congested" each and every time? This argument, if not absurd, is moot as when the CPS determines the best ground station based on flight tracking protocol, the message is placed into a queue routed through the best station and then sent in the order it was received. ACARS messages are not very large in terms of bytes. Multiple messages can be sent in less than a second. It is logical to queue the messages at a remote ground station which is closer to the aircraft than to route a message through a ground station much further away in which the aircraft may not receive based on distance and altitude. Ground stations can send messages up to 200 miles, but this is only guaranteed if the aircraft is above 29,000 feet, as stated in the MFR sourced above.

When asked how the ACARS network chooses a Remote Ground Station for routing messages to an aircraft, FDR, Radar, ACARS Expert and Electrical Engineer Dennis Cimino had this to say,

The aircraft are constantly in contact with whatever ground station is nearest to it, more or less in 'data link' mode, sending acknowledgements back and forth.  In cases where multiple stations on the ground are within range,  the dropped packet numbers decide which ground station gets the priority. not as sophisticated as N.T.D.S. (naval tactical data systems) but pretty close to that.   

On a more 'system' level, the ground stations are more or less in spread spectrum constant transmit mode like cell phones now use, so they won't step on each other continually. when an aircraft receiver's MDS (minimum discernible signal) sensitivity is achieved or reached out of the 'tangential' noise floor level, the aircraft's receiver then begins to try to data frame sync with the ground. then once that happens and two way 'ping pong' as data link persons refer to it, happens, then any queued messages get shipped to the receiving system and data relative to the aircraft's flight get sent back down to the ground.

This corroborates the Flight Tracking Protocol as outlined above based on a July 2002 Newsletter published by ARINC titled The Global Link(5).

Now that it is understood there were many ground stations which should have been chosen by the CPS before routing messages through MDT, 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.

Further corroboration comes when an ARINC Expert was contacted in San Francisco. When told about the ACARS message being routed through PIT after the airplane had already allegedly crashed into the South Tower, this is what she had to say -

"There is no way that message would be routed through Pittsburgh if the airplane crashed in New York City"

The keyword here is "routed". This ARINC expert feels the ACARS messages may be fake. Pilots For 9/11 Truth were not given permission to use her name. It is possible all messages can be fabricated, but that would attract multiple felony charges as well as the information was provided through the Freedom Of Information Act and used as evidence to support the claims made by the 9/11 Commission.

Pilots For 9/11 Truth encourage readers to contact an ARINC Specialist in your area to confirm or refute the above evidence offered. Contact information for an ARINC office near you can be located through a simple google search. Feel free to direct them to this site and article.

Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at MDT, then later PIT, over the numerous ground 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 aircraft observed to strike the south tower, was not United 175.

"Converging Aircraft " radar tracks showing the targets converging can be viewed in
9/11 Intercepted, based on the RADES Radar Data provided through FOIA
(Click Image To Enlarge)

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

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.

(1) - 12.9mb pdf
(2) (bottom of page 6) - 1.3mb pdf
(3) - 681kb pdf
(4) - 900kb pdf
(5) - 174kb pdf
(6) 9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed -

Flight 175 was duplicated: Threefold Confirmation


;09111323 108575 0574

As I've shown in the last blog entry, the ACARS radio messages sent from United Airlines dispatchers to Flight 93 are clear evidence that the plane was over Fort Wayne, Indiana and later Champaign, Illinois when it received its last messages. This doesn't mean that the "official" Flight 93 which turned around over Cleveland didn't exist; there is plenty of FAA material showing that it did exist. Hence the conclusion that United Airlines tracked a different Flight 93 than the FAA is inevitable - a case for duplicated planes and 9/11 being an Operation Northwoods-like maneuver.

Likewise, United dispatchers sent ACARS messages to Flight 175 locating it near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania just when the South Tower was hit (by whatever plane) and near Pittsburgh 20 minutes later. Hence the Flight 175 that was tracked by United Airlines was not identical to the plane that hit the South Tower.

Before featuring the ACARS messages in particular, I'd like to repeat why it's possible to deduce the approximate position of a plane by means of the transmitting ground station that is attached to each message:

Mr. Winter explained the Aircraft Condition and Reporting System ACARS uses radio ground stations (RGS) at various locations throughout the United States for communication. The messages from the aircraft utilize the RGS in a downlink operating system. A central router determines the strongest signal received from the aircraft and routes the signal/message to UAL flight dispatch.

In other words: if the message denotes (for example) PIT, this means that the Pittsburgh RGS has received the strongest signal and that the plane is in the vicinity of Pittsburgh (usually up to 70 miles, depending on the distance to other RGS's). A map of the RGS's of the relevant part of the United States is here:

Now to the ACARS messages. They have generously been scanned and published by Mike Williams of

I have transcribed them and added brief comments. The crucial informations are highlighted in red. The last three letters in the fourth line denote the active RGS, and the last line denotes the date and time which is given in zulu format (09111259 = September 11th, 8:59 EDT).

At 8:59, United aircraft maintenance employee Jerry Tsen sent an ACARS message to Flight 175 via the radio ground station MDT (Harrisburg), indicating that the plane was near Harrisburg, not New York.


;09111259 108575 0543

At 9:03, United flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger sent an ACARS message to Flight 175 when it was still in the vicinity of Harrisburg - exactly when another plane (later believed to be Flight 175) crashed into the WTC South Tower:

.CHIAKUA 111303/ED

;09111303 108575 0545

Also at 9:03, United flight dispatcher Sandy Rogers sent another ACARS message to Flight 175.

.CHIYRUA 111303/AD

;09111303 108575 0546

Finally, at 9:23, Ed Ballinger sent the last ACARS message to Flight 175. The message was received while the plane was near Pittsburgh (PIT). This was 20 minutes after the South Tower was hit.


;09111323 108575 0574

The existence of the "official" Flight 175 is undoubtedly substantiated by FAA documents (ATC/pilot transcripts etc.) So like Flight 93, United Airlines tracked a different Flight 175 than the FAA. Another case of plane duplication. And for Flight 175 there is strong additional evidence that the plane was duplicated from start:

two planes identifiable as United 175 took off from Logan ; one at 8:14 (the official one) and one at 8:23 (this one with tail number N612UA).

the impossible phone call out of United 175: Peter Hanson, who was aboard the plane, called his father Lee Hanson at 9:00:03 through a satellite-based GTE airphone. The call lasted 192 seconds, hence ending at 9:03:15, 4 seconds after a plane later believed to be Flight 175 hit the South Tower (9:03:11, according to seismic data). With the detection of a second Flight 175, the phone call suddenly makes sense.

Disregarding the ACARS messages, the recordings of GTE phone calls, and the statement of US Airways pilot Steven Miller who observed United 175 taking off from Boston just before himself, is not an option.

The alternative explanation is straightforward and yields a consistent flight path: United 175, tail number N612UA, took off from Boston at 8:23. Peter Hanson talked with his father from 9:00 to 9:03 when the plane was in the skies over Harrisburg. It continued to fly westbound und was near Pittsburgh when it received its last message at 9:23. It is not clear yet what happened to this United 175 afterwards.

It is clear, however, that the "official" United 175 tracked by the FAA was a different plane. The research will continue.

posted by Woody Box
CNN Ghostplane puffball is below left wing - Fairbanks ABOVE - Holograms do that, because they are calculated (2001=Low Precision!) for a particular viewing angle. google u2r2h hologrammes

missing wing (incomplete hologram).  READ THE STORY HERE