There was some reported "pager message traffic" from 9-11.

This goes over some of the questions about the data: Some of the data within the supposed messages does not reconcile.
.
One of the problems with the supposed pager messages is that the listed phone numbers, in some cases, do not geographically match the locations listed in mapping software or the phone book.

For example, one phone number geographically matches an intersection in south San Jose; however, the listed name in the message goes to a name that matches a person working at a company, many miles away.

In another case, the listed name of the person does not reconcile with the public information about that organization.

Example

2001-09-11 09:37:50 Arch [0471527] B  ALPHA  
22-PLS CALL JO ANN HSING 408-398-0348

The phone number is for "Cisco", but if you compare the geo-location for the phone number, with the listed information for Cisco, the two do not reconcile. The difference is several miles.

And the listed name -- Jo Ann -- does not obviously overlap with Cisco. This is not an isolated error or inconsistency with the data provided.

Some of the provided phone numbers do not reconcile with any valid phone number; but there is no evidence of a resend or correction of that apparent wrong/invalid information.

Example: Furmen and 252-4411 do not match, from:

09:20:31 Skytel [002377219]

This many years after 2001, if Furmen and the number were real, there should be an overlap with the search engine. The point is that this happens multiple times with other name-number combinations: The data doesn't exist in any public forum except for wikileaks.

This consistent problem raises doubts about the veracity of the supposed data.

Analysis

It's possible someone may have fabricated some information, or hoped that some of the above checking would be difficult going back to 2001.

Also, notice the way the pager message are sent: They're usually plain-text. Meaning, they're readable. However, in 2001, people sometimes used abbreviations and private codes, to save space, shorten text, and fit more information in a short space of a pager window. A long,  wordy, non-abbreviated message wasn't practical in 2001.

Consistent Headline Problem

Also, one would think that a high profile event -- 9-11, plane crashes -- would have been archived. However, there's limited public use of the following phrase:

Yahoo Alert, Plane crashes into second World Trade Center tower

One problem is that the public infomration about this phrase is from the AP.

That seems odd: The limited archiving on a high profile event seems unreasonable, raising questions about whether this was the real wording of the "Yahoo Alert" supposedly sent on the pager. Why didn't someone mention this on a blog some time after the events that morning? It seems odd we onloy have this phrase ten-years on, from an unverified source.

The two phrases -- Yahoo, and the headline -- only appear together in one place: Wikileaks. That is a self-referencing search engine hit to Wikileaks in 2010, and does not connect do independent data from 2001.

There are other headlines supposedly sent via the pager in 2001 which also do not trace back to any other public source on the web, except wikileaks. This problem with headlines appears to be a pattern, and raises doubts about the veracity of the pager data.

Limited Use of Words

Some words -- randomly picked -- do not reconcile with anything. For example, this phrase appeares to be narrowly used, but is not specific enough to clarify what is happening:

"Ty II passivation"

The problem is that the phrase doesn't specify which type of chemical is used: Copper, sodium, or chromium; which MIL-STD; nor comment on QQ-P-35.

Also, this doesn't make sense:

"I'm on my way to the PEL for TyII passivation"
and
"Greg will go to PEL for this job."

PEL, if it really is connected with passivation, isn't a location or an activity, but a measurement in terms of µg/m³, or microgram per cubic meter. PEL is the OSHA acronym for "permissible exposure limit".

However, as supposedly used and sent via pager, it appears to be non-sense. If it were real, we should have -- in 2010 -- some use of that phrase, other than wikileaks. Why no other use of this phrase since 2001?

That defies reason.

Conclusion

We urge caution and are not convinced the data is genuine, credible, or reliable.  There are too many inconsistencies, and too many questions. 

This should not be happening, especially when randomly selecting data from the supposed pager archives. For the most part, we should be able to use the data to resolve issues, and provide further clarification. However, the data does the opposite.

Alert

The data in the supposed pager lines suggests the people  -- or person -- who created the information do not know what they're talking about. 

At worst, until the data and information content within the supposed pager data is independently verified as correct, the information can mislead and confuse researchers.

The messages, as written, are designed to be read by someone not familiar with the content, communication systems, or technical data.

But that is not the way information with pagers was sent: The information in 2001 generally attempted to send information that both the sender and receiver would be familiar with, and would rely on specialized codes and abbreviations.

The way the messages are crafted -- using non-sense codes -- is not consistent with the long, wordy pager text.  Jargon should include specialized, correct, abbreviated information. Here, the data is inconsistent: Using supposed jargon, but wordy pager messages.

Because the text messages in the supposed pager messages do not include these specialized -- traceable -- codes, we have further doubts about the data provided.

Further, it appears someone created the information without thinking there might be a detailed analysis of that information; and they believed the information -- as provided -- would be accepted, without independent testing or audit.

That defies both auditing and legal standards of evidence.

We're not saying the data is not pager information, only that a quick review of the information leaves us confused:

Why are there very few lines of text with specialized coes or shortened text, as we generally see with instant messaging or other cell phone text messages;
What would logically explain -- and survive an audit -- to account for a supposed "pager number" from the rosters to be listed as a "land line" in public phone records;
Why does a pager company list "Yahoo" as the source of the headline, but the not AP;
Why isn't the disclosed information within the supposed message consistent with other public information; and
Why are there inconsistencies between the provided data and available personnel rosters?

Recommendations

Engage with Yahoo and AP and see if they can substantiate any of the headlines supposedly sent via the pagers.

We encourage  others interested in this topic to review other phone numbers, and compare the published information about that phone number with the mapping information:

- Does the phone number match the published geo location
- Does the published geo-location about that phone number reconcile with the mapping software for the organization supposedly connected with that phone number
- Are the names listed in a message consistent with personnel rosters of that firm or organization, as available for 2001

When dealing with a private phone number, it will be interesting to review the 2001-era phone numbers with the account owners' names; and compare that data in the listed message with the account information from 2001. Since then, there may have been several changes in phone number-owner names.

There needs to be some analysis on the phone number itself. Some of the supposed "pager" numbers are now "land lines." If we are to believe this is valid data, then we need to know when -- exactly -- that "pager" number in the roster changed to a land line.