Short introduction to the 9/11 ACARS debate

Posted by: Sergio

As known to some 9/11 researchers, the last months of 2011 and the first few weeks of 2012 have been characterized by an harsh debate over the ACARS messages to and from the four aircraft involved in 9/11. The ACARS issue was originally raised by Woody Box in 2009 after the release of the printout of Ed Ballinger's ACARS logs (1) released under FOIA. However, it was only at the end of the last year that the most significant implications raised by Woody Box claims have been publicly analyzed and debated, mainly on Unexplained Mysteries' and Pilots for 911 Truth's forum sections. Pilots for 911 Truth eventually published two articles (2). Warren Stutt and other posters on Unexplained Mysteries raised a counterclaim supporting the official story (3).

The theory raised by Warren Stutt and other people on Unexplained Mysteries is entirely based on the printout of ARINC logs (4), a document apparently created in 2004 and released years later under FOIA. However, no information about the submitter and the release date of such FOIA request are known as today. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the ARINC logs were never publicly accessible until made public by Warren Stutt on his own server with a link in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth's forum on December 14, 2011 and eventually uploaded by him on Scribd on December 19, 2011. All this, along with the fact that the data logs for United 175 are completely missing from this document, the fact that the data related to United 93 appear to be clearly in conflict with the statements made by several UAL dispatchers to the FBI as early as 2002 and other incongruences, make the authenticity of this document at least questionable. That said, Stutt's claim is essentially based on the assumption that the "Stn=" field within the first ULBLK block in the ARINC logs would indicate the actual ground station transmitting an uplink sent by the airline dispatchers, while the RGS (remote ground station) shown in "Target Stn=" field within the ULMSG block (that matches the RGS shown in the dispatcher's logs) would merely indicate a "predicted station" based on the original flight plan. Not one single section from any ARINC specification, not one single statement from any ARINC employee or ACARS expert corroborates this assumption. Also, during our research we found several cases that appear to flatly contradict this claim. All these issues will be treated in detail in the next articles. Some of them have been originally posted by me on Pilots for 9/11 Truth and will be republished here with some edits.

---

NOTES

(1) See T7 B13 UAL ACARS to 9-11 Flights Fdr- Entire Contents- 2 Pg Notes and ACARS Prints 787 (Printout of Ballinger's logs) in the in the BASIC LITERATURE ABOUT 9/11 ACARS section in the right navigation bar.
(2) See ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH and IT IS CONCLUSIVE - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE WELL AFTER CRASH.
(3) See in particular Return to Sender - DEBUNKED ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH DEBUNKED and the thread "The 9/11 Planes and the Pentagon attack" on Unexplained Mysteries
(4) See 5 AWA 898 Printout of ARINC Messages in the BASIC LITERATURE ABOUT 9/11 ACARS section in the right navigation bar. The data for United 175 are missing.