wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby bitchesbrew » Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:46 pm

this is in-progress at http://911.wikileaks.org/

From 3AM on Wednesday November 25, 2009, until 3AM the following day (US east coast time), WikiLeaks is releasing over half a million US national text pager intercepts. The intercepts cover a 24 hour period surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington.

The messages are being broadcast to the global community "live", sychronized to the time of day they were sent. The first message is from 3AM September 11, 2001, five hours before the first attack, and the last, 24 hours later.

Text pagers are usualy carried by persons operating in an official capacity. Messages in the archive range from Pentagon and New York Police Department exchanges, to computers reporting faults to their operators as the World Trade Center collapsed.
User avatar
bitchesbrew
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 2:15 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby coldharvest » Wed Nov 25, 2009 2:31 pm

quit living in the past
I know the law. And I have spent my entire life in its flagrant disregard.
User avatar
coldharvest
Abdul Rahman
 
Posts: 25677
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 2:36 am
Location: Island of Misfit Toys

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Link173rd » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:07 pm

No claim to having inside info, or expertise. After a great deal of research however, I have come to the conclusion the towers were ultimately brought down by "us" through demolition, but only out of necessity to avoid much greater death and damage to the surrounding city. Reports the towers were demo-preped in the late 90's after the first ground level attack, because if a future attack was successful the towers falling sideways would produce incredible casualties and damage. Demo'd to drop the buildings if they experienced a 20% list. Can one imagine the public repercussions of U.S. government admitting they purposely dropped the buildings into their own footprints, not as part of an attack, but as a preventative measure? Suggestions that the owners insurance only covered the destruction of the building if "caused" by terrorist, and that acknowledging the "somewhat" rational pre-demolition preparations to minimize loss of life and damage would have negated the policy. Suggesting a conspiracy, if any, between the government, the owner, and even insurers to "agree" to the MSM conclusions that the "planes alone" brought down the buildings. As to complicity, the real conspiracy crime seems to be the ongoing political correctness, or banking, corporate, intelligence intrigues which allow terrorist organizations to thrive at all, infiltrate Western countries, and even prosper from our relationships. The consequences of corporate, and official prostitution versus the true welfare of the state.
Link173rd
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Frenchy » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:40 pm

Link173rd wrote:No claim to having inside info, or expertise. After a great deal of research however, I have come to the conclusion the towers were ultimately brought down by "us" through demolition, but only out of necessity to avoid much greater death and damage to the surrounding city.


How come, in your "great deal of" research, you didn't bother watching (or more important, listen to the audio of) an actual controlled demolition?

If you had, you'd realize the Towers' fall really doesn't resemble controlled demolition, at all.
Frenchy
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Link173rd » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:24 pm

Frenchy, dude! What's with the auto-attack. Just one more smoe here trying to put together puzzle pieces that never seem to fit. As far as research, I pulled up specs for the towers construction. Google the search. The video's of the construction were amazing. From the ground up, 48 massive steel reinforced concrete pillars around 12 independant elevator shafts, surrounded by steel reinforced concrete boxes. This heavily reinforced (like a a bunker system) column of 12 shafts took up about one-third of the center of the overall structure, all the way to the top. In some of the 9/11 video's one can just barely see remnants of these shafts blowing out the top and sides as the buildings collapse straight down. Then, after viewing dozens of examples of large structure demoliton from around the world, I found myself stunned to see none of them were as precise, or as near perfect in their foot print collapse as the towers. The "unverified" reports of computer controlled demolitions having been placed in the mid 90's as a prevention of side-collapse in case of another attack simply suggested a pro-active effort on the part of the government to minimize death and damage, not a false flag plan to attack our own country. That's another conspiracy in it's own right. The reports of pro-active demolition placement also suggested individuals involved experienced mysterious deaths. Again, nothing I can verify. However, if for the moment I dismiss the idea of elements in our government being so evil as to attack or purposely allow our country to be attacked, the pre-placement of demolitions out of safety concerns, the issue of insurance for the owner, the unbelievably solid internal center construction of the towers, and the fear of the government, even if for just cause, having to admit they did for all intents and purposes, perpetrate the actual final collapse of the building,.....just seems to put some of the puzzle pieces together. As to your issue of audio of demo like explosions, there are certainly as many suggesting demolitions, including witness statements, as there are those that don't support the use of demolitions. So, not saying I'm right dudo, just saying I have tried to put together a lot of odd shaped pieces. I welcome better clarification from any source.
Link173rd
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Penta » Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:03 pm

Link123: how about splitting your paragraphs? People might bother to read what you write then.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Link173rd » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:07 am

So, Penta, as I responded to Frenchy, what's with the auto-attack? I suspected attempting to participate in this forum would be as useless as those on AOL. Prissy, mouthy, vulgar girly boysand girls with nothing better to do with their time than to bad mouth everyone with mindless, pointless attacks. Whether you approve of my gramatical, spelling, or sentence structure skills, my efforts were serious in nature. No demand on my part that you or others agree with my conclusions on the "issue," which was the release of text pager intercepts that at least "suggested" some in authority knew something was about to happen prior to the towers attacks. And, regarding the possible communcations about "bringing down" the buildings. Just trying to put the big picture together here. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Commie, or Right Wing conservative, there is a lot going on that leaves all of us scratching our heads in confusion. Why don't you and Frenchy try addressing these issues. Or, you guys could just go back to AOL and harass your fellow duffasses there.
Link173rd
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Penta » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:15 am

Just that it's easier to read if it isn't a stream of unbroken text.

Presumably you want people to read your posts, or why bother?
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Link173rd » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:28 am

Point taken Penta. I do have a habit of writing paragraph long sentences.

I will try to put my ideas in a more readable format in the future. :>)

My apology for the rather strong rebuke. It has just become very difficult to find a forum for no-nonsense discussions of the serious issues facing our world.
Link173rd
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Penta » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:41 am

Welcome to the board.
Shes never interfered with me. I have no complaints about her.
Same here.
Mega ditto.
I met her once and I found her to be a nice lady. Not kookey in any way.
Penta has always been gracious, kind and very sane in all my interactions with her.
User avatar
Penta
Ruby Tuesday
 
Posts: 15585
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:32 pm
Location: UK, Spain

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Frenchy » Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:52 am

Not auto-attack, dude, just disagreeing. You always so defensive?

Just saying: a real life controlled demo involves a lot of loud, sharp explosion sounds; accompanied by bright flashes and puffs of debris, at each and every structural connection in the building. The WTC collapse, didn't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSDagV2E ... re=related

Watch those, with the sound on. Compare to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mz0_x7313I

taken from just a few blocks way. See & hear the difference?

The twin towers' collapse was evocative of a controlled demo. That doesn't mean it was actually much like a controlled demo.

The fact that they fell straight down, isn't all that surprising when you consider that's the direction gravity works in. On a near-windless day, what possible force would encourage the collapse to happen in any other direction?
Frenchy
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Link173rd » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:05 am

Yes Frenchy, I am afraid being defensive has become a rather unsavory habit of mine since the day I watched the Towers go down, myself and others in the room all yelling at the TV "it looked like the Towers had been demo'd. How could that be?"

So, years after the 9/11 report, the multitude of reports by the 9/11 for truth organization, and a dozen viewings of the Popular Mechanics determinations, I, and millions of others still have questions. As you have mentioned, one would expect to hear floor to floor demo charges in the Towers collapse.

Many have said this is what they saw and heard. Remember my description of the massive support structure in the center third of each building.

By all rights, after viewing so many other demolition events around the world, when the 'external" structure "slid" straight down to the ground, the internal bunker level structure of 12 elevator shafts embedded in 48 massive steel reinforced concrete pillars, surrounded by steel reinforced concrete boxes, should have been standing to this day.

Those internal shafts are what were reported to have been prepared for demolition. True or not. Then the claims by the 9/11 for truth archetechs that special high temperature, steel cutting exposive residue has been found in the debri. True or not.

These after the event statements would at least explain how that massive internal support system could have simply flatened to the ground. Yes, the external two-thirds of the towers could conceivably have "pancaked" as claimed.

I cannot yet accept the internal reinforced structure going down without very sophisticated demolition preparation. Here in Roanoke, VA we citizens watched for weeks as construction crews pounded at an old 10 story grainy under demolition. It too was constructed of solid steel reinforced concrete.
Link173rd
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Frenchy » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:34 am

Link173rd wrote:As you have mentioned, one would expect to hear floor to floor demo charges in the Towers collapse.

Many have said this is what they saw and heard.


What're you saying, the audio track on the video I just posted is faked? You've got a few reports from people inside the building hearing loud booms. A few, not a series. Booms, not sharp cracks.

Remember my description of the massive support structure in the center third of each building.


You know, you can get the floor plans to the WTC online.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... table.html

By all rights, after viewing so many other demolition events around the world, when the 'external" structure "slid" straight down to the ground, the internal bunker level structure of 12 elevator shafts embedded in 48 massive steel reinforced concrete pillars, surrounded by steel reinforced concrete boxes, should have been standing to this day.


Details matter. 47 steel tube columns, not 48 steel-reinforced concrete columns. No offense, but how am I to take you seriously when you don't have the most basic facts straight?

There's also a basic-engineering-knowledge problem, that I don't blame you for not understanding - lightweight structural webs are counter-intuitive, compared to massive post & beam structures; like trusses are counter-intuitive compared to beams.

The strength of these structures is in the connections, not the individual bits of the frame; a lot of the loads are in tension, no compression.

Ever framed a sheetrock partition wall with light-gauge steel? Before the sheetrock goes on, you can bend & twist the studs, or the whole wall, with a finger. No way could you lean on the studs & expect them to hold you, it'll bend out of the way & you'll fall. Sheetrock on one side, only lightly better... Rock both sides, then you can hang kitchen cabinets off it, fill them with heavy dishes, no problem.

I cannot yet accept the internal reinforced structure going down without very sophisticated demolition preparation. Here in Roanoke, VA we citizens watched for weeks as construction crews pounded at an old 10 story grainy under demolition. It too was constructed of solid steel reinforced concrete.


Yeah, but see, that's just it - the internal core wasn't reinforced concrete, it was steel-framed, the weight born by those 47 steel tubes. Tubes can hold a tremendous amount of weight, as long as their shape is intact; but just a tiny bit of deformation will make them tremendously weak.

Grab an empty toilet-paper roll, stand it up, push on the top: pretty strong. Hold your weight steady enough, you can stand on it. Put a slight bend into one side, try it again: pretty weak.

The floor trusses connected to those tubes helped stabilize them; but by the same token, once the floor trusses started to deform, they load the tubes in exactly the wrong way, sideways, and they lost most of their load-bearing ability.
Frenchy
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:04 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Link173rd » Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:56 am

I certainly see your points of contention. Maybe there in lies the difficulty I have in ignoring what seems obvious to my untrained eye. No engineering backgroung whatsoever.

Your example of the toilet roll also confuses me. If the toilet roll experiences a "bend" somewhere it would seem like that would be the point that would give to pressure, and likely, at least intiatially to one side. No one watching the attacks would have been very surprise if at some point the area above impact had given at some weakest point, and toppled over.

47 or 48 pillars does not seem to me to be my major error, rather if I am mistaken about the concrete reinforcement that I thought I observed in the video's of the construction. Forest for the trees, or trees for the forest. Maybe for me, just a illusion effect.

I find myself struggling between having to believe the towers were so improperly constructed that they failed to respond to major fires as many other building have done, the conclusion of 700 architechs of the 9/11 for Truth organization, and of course not being able to visualize the outer more fragile portion of the building not descending faster than the much more reinforced internal center.

In any case, you are convinced, and clearly seem more qualified to make a reasoned opinion. At this point I will just have to review the buiding specs, and construction video's to see if I can purge my perceptions to a different conclusion. Thanks for the insights!
Link173rd
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:02 pm

Re: wikileaks 9/11 pager logs

Postby Frenchy » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:04 pm

Link173rd wrote:I certainly see your points of contention. Maybe there in lies the difficulty I have in ignoring what seems obvious to my untrained eye. No engineering backgroung whatsoever.

Your example of the toilet roll also confuses me. If the toilet roll experiences a "bend" somewhere it would seem like that would be the point that would give to pressure,


Which is what happened. North Tower got hit by the plane, on floors 93 through 99; the initial failure was at the 98th floor. South tower was hit on floors 77-85; the initial failure was on the 82nd floor.

and likely, at least intiatially to one side. No one watching the attacks would have been very surprise if at some point the area above impact had given at some weakest point, and toppled over.


They both start out with the top bit toppling. It's really obvious in pictures of the South Tower, where it's 28 stories toppling (compared to North tower's 12 stories). But once gravity takes over, it's just a bunch of debris dropping into the floors below. Gravity pulls down, not sideways.

I find myself struggling between having to believe the towers were so improperly constructed that they failed to respond to major fires as many other building have done


Ignoring that small matter of a plane crash, before? Come on. Play fair.

the conclusion of 700 architechs of the 9/11 for Truth organization,


LOL. Ask any structural engineer, or contractor, what they think of the architects' grasp of structural issues. Hell, ask just about any architect. Architecture is art, not science or craft. They're trained in aesthetics, not structural calculations.

I've gone through the list of that "architects for 9/11 truth" or whatever it's called, couldn't find a single structural engineer in the lot of them.

and of course not being able to visualize the outer more fragile portion of the building not descending faster than the much more reinforced internal center.


I honestly don't understand why you'd expect the the outside to fall faster. Huh? See Galileo and the Tower of Pisa.

If you meant "first"... the outside only supported 1/3rd of the weight. It was mostly there to stop the thing from falling over, not really holding it up. The inside core held up most of the weight; it collapsed first, & pulled down the outside walls, more or less.

...that's not exactly right; it'd be more accurate to say that the outer skin and the floors and the central core, and their connections to each other, all together interacting as a sort of web, kept it from collapsing or falling over. The result is stronger than the sum of the parts, you know? But if that web gets damaged enough, suddenly it becomes only as strong as the weakest individual part. Which is not very strong at all.

In any case, you are convinced, and clearly seem more qualified to make a reasoned opinion. At this point I will just have to review the buiding specs, and construction video's to see if I can purge my perceptions to a different conclusion. Thanks for the insights!


Start here:

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov

then go here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm
Frenchy
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 10:04 pm

Next

Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 21 guests

cron