Source: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/united-93-acars-uplink-and-downlink
Regarding the crucial messages to United 93 (UAL 93) after the Shanksville crash, Warren Stutt stated in 2012, that the aircraft did not receive ACARS messages #18 and #19, because they were not “acknowledged”, by a DLBLK downlink acknowledgement. The ARINC file shows that there are no type DLBLK blocks and therefore no ACARS messages were received from UAL93 after the official time of the crash 10:03 a.m. Stutt seems to believe that every received uplink (ULBLK) is inevitably acknowledged by the aircraft, so if a message is not acknowledged, it has not been received by the aircraft, however, this is not true. An aircraft may receive an uplink, while ground control does not receive the acknowledging downlink (DLBLK).In the context of ACARS, “not acknowledged” is not equivalent to “not received.” Those are two different claims.Here’s why…An ACARS uplink typically follows this sequence:Ground system transmits an uplink message.The aircraft’s ACARS unit receives it.The aircraft sends a downlink acknowledgment (ACK).The ground network receives that ACK and records the successful transaction.If step 4 fails—for example because of radio interference, loss of communications, equipment failure, or the aircraft ceasing transmission—the ground station may have no record of the acknowledgment, even if the aircraft actually received the message.An important technical distinction in how ACARS works…The key issue is the difference between:The aircraft receiving an uplink, andThe ground station receiving the aircraft’s acknowledgement.Those are not the same event.A DLBLK (”downlink block acknowledgement”) is transmitted by the aircraft after it successfully receives an ACARS uplink. But the fact that ARINC never logged the DLBLK does not logically prove the aircraft never received the uplink. It only proves that ARINC never received the acknowledgement.I hope this simplifies the “uplink” and “downlink” ACARS acknowledgements. Finally, I shall be posting one last article, which will be a critical analysis of the International Center For 9/11 Justice - Manual or Automated, Aircraft Flight Path Study, which they recently released, where they concluded that the aircrafts that hit the WTC buildings and Pentagon were automatedly guided into the their targets. The study itself began from the outset with a myopic intent to offer two choices “Manual or Automated”, while ignoring all other critical evidence, which proves otherwise. This lie has been promoted by Redacted and UK Column, who I consider to be controlled alternative media outlets. Both Redacted and UK Column have not allowed challenge to the study they have promoted. This speaks volumes!I hope to follow-up my critique of the study with a discussion about it with 9/11 Revisionist. I did offer the author of the study Piers Robinson an invitation to discuss his study with me, however this has not been taken up. Thanks for reading and caring!
Archived URL: https://911planesresearch.substack.com/p/united-93-acars-uplink-and-downlink
�� CONTENT HASHES:
SHA-256: c78e15dff003a60a6ef9597628fd47f23251ec53a7ff9b676477c1d4eca8ff17
BLAKE2b: 4471b67fa4d213a0895401ca54108cdb7c4bd27dbc9427f14e853992ecabd0d6
MD5: 34233f7cd6bec14408d33fcb1a1618e5
�� TITLE HASHES:
SHA-256: b530ae81940098e215d91b0cdafa0e88ce77888318deed01e8858a9412c51d35
BLAKE2b: ed34cd94a8f48539c2f2573d019585a0e5e83ea62a0ee0505efc7d69212f88a8
MD5: bdcb7da797d04b53dcb097f4b97d731b
�� INTEGRITY HASHES:
SHA-256: 1e063a9686511c51c6cf2cb5932a2be6d4d7b77b5b844f46e6bda38cea3c5d51
BLAKE2b: 241ffc086f913530c5c81f5989b0786783db3010fb7c8a75938af1e637a8e94f
MD5: 634c8608178d225dd6e40f85a1274600
Archived with ArcHive - Client-side cryptographic archival system