Talk:United Airlines Flight 93

Big Tone Problem

• "Beamer and others heroically overpowered the terrorists and forced the plane into the ensuing crash landing to thwart the plan of the hijackers to use the plane to murder other civilians in Washington DC"

Heroically overpowered? Thwart? Murder?

• Also, under "Crash" heading:

"However the governments explanation of flight 93's crash has been proven an undisputable lie. Their was almost no wreckage found, there were no remains found of any people and the tiny pieces of remains from the plane were scattered thrgouhout a 2mile radius. This shows the government lied about flight 93, and most likely it wasn't even a plane that supposdly crashed. The crash of flight 93 contradicts every single known plane crash in history."

*Considering the topic, the possibility of adding a "surrounding controversy and questions" section should be considered, which may help to distinguish undisputed facts (times of phone calls, names, etc) from those that are still debated (black box, 9/11 Commission findings, etc).

AS A FRIEND TO ONE OF THE PASSENGERS, THESE PEOPLE'S SACRAFICES SHOULDNEVER BE FORGOTTEN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.10.223.153 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You're exactly right, but that's not the point...Jersey John (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This page needs no "controversy section" all of that nonsense has been addressed and proven to be bunk. There is nothing about Flight 93 that is being "debated" by experts, nothing. There is nothing about Flight 93 that "contradicts" anything, except in the mind of conspiracy nuts. Supertheman ^(talk) 06:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this unsourced commentary considered acceptable for this talk page? Wildbear (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Killed the pilots?

Apparently the new United 93 (film) documents that the pilots were killed by the hijackers almost immediately. I'm still not sure from looking at this article if that's factually correct or just fiction? Mad Jack O'Lantern 05:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

One word.... Hollywood L-Bit 06:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem being that "Hollywood" is leading the assumptions and speculations of most editors of this article, it seems like to me. 64.229.28.213 12:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The CVR transcript says at least one pilot was alive - At 9:45:25 a pilot is asked for. At 9:53:35 he is forced to look out the window. They probably kept one alive in case they needed help with the airplane. (For example, when they wanted the oxygen turned off.)

--74.134.114.185 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The makers of the film did not know this, as the pilot's widow was not allowed to talk about this (since the Moussawi trial was underway). But after the film was made, they determined that the pilot probably died on impact, with the rest of the crew. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Quadell -- huhh??? Care to back that up?? NYDCSP 00:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I am NYDCSP - I deleted the sentence about the CVR "debunking" the idea that LeRoy Homer was dead, rather than rewrite it to be more accurate because it clearly seemed designed to promote an unfounded theory for which there is no evidence beyond that line about "the pilot" in the transcript. The use of Homer's name is not only done here but was also done in the articleon the film United 93, so it seems that someone might be pushing a concept they would like to be true rather than one that is clearly evidenced in source material, or reflects even a minor consensus among published experts or in official reports. The 9/11 commission report found that there was at least one clear report of a passenger through a cell phone call saying there were two bodies on the floor outside the cockpit, and several reporting the body of one First Class passenger in the aisle. There is not one single report anywhere, neither in the official reports nor in any of the press coverage, which places LeRoy Homer alive in the cabin anywhere. The reference to "the pilot" by the terrorists in the CVR is mysterious, yes, and there are also unclarified sounds in the transcript as "ugh...ugh" but those are not clarified in any documentation, so to say they were someone other than the terrorists (perhaps the terrorists were moaning or making nervous sounds? it's not clear) or that they were not Welsh dying on the floor of the cockpit, is not grounded in any clear evidence yet. Perhaps if and when the CVR recording is released and open to broad analysis and interpretation, these things might be a little more clear. But for now, claims that the CVR "debunked" the idea that Homer was injured or in fact dead -- or even point at Homer vs. Dahl -- just don't meet Wikipedia standards for fact. Sorry.

Also, to the previous posters, you write with some kind of decisive tone, but there is absolutely no statement in the 9/11 report which declares as fact this idea that there was a pilot in the cockpit with the terrorists or that one of the pilots was kept alive. You reference items which you claim show the pilot is being told to look out the window -- where does the transcript say that they were talking to a pilot? In fact, the report's only reference is this sentence: "Callers reported that a passenger had been stabbed and that two people were lying on the floor of the cabin, injured or dead—possibly the captain and first officer."

So please stop making decisive statements that a pilot was alive-- or that LeRoy Homer was alive -- there is no evidence it was Homer, nor is there any clear evidence that a pilot was alive beyond that one cryptic statement from the terrorist. For all we know, he was joking from nerves. We can't know until we hear the tape.NYDCSP 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, this sentence is something I propose should be greatly altered or deleted: "A passenger was heard on the cockpit voice recorder, saying that the pilots were outside of first-class and had their throats cut," citing a December 2001 article in The Guardian of the UK. There is no link from the citation note to a full-text article, so it's not clear where The Guardian got this information, but it is very clear from the CVR transcript now in full public view that no such phrase was on the CVR. If there is no reply in a month or so, I think I'm going to delete it. Please discuss? NYDCSP 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

MORE: Again with the LeRoy Homer agenda pushing. Look, I'm sure the man was brave and a true American hero, but someone is continuously, throughout Wikipedia, putting unsourced, false claims that there was conclusive proof that co-pilot LeRoy Homer was not killed by the hijackers. Today I deleted the sentence in the introduction of this article which not only claimed that the 9/11 commission report SAID that LeRoy Homer participated in the passenger revolt, but that it also named those which it said did participate. It named those who said in phone calls they had decided to participate, and it said a family member, upon hearing the CVR recording, recognized "a loved one"'s voice, but even that person wasn't named. We know a revolt took place. We know it was among the passengers and surviving crew, we can assume it included all those people -- but there is NO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE, published, or unpublished, that says LeRoy Homer survived the takeover of the plane. No reference of any kind in the 9/11 Commission report. Not one eye-witness report among the cell phone calls placing a pilot alive in teh cabin (but at least one placing two dead people on the floor outside the cockpit). None. So please, stop with the constant, unending, unsourced postings saying he was alive. It's bordering on vandalism NYDCSP 18:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cite for the U.S. Capital target claim.

The following statement was tagged with {{cn}}:

The 9/11 Commission ruled that the actions of the crew and passengers prevented the destruction of the US Capitol building, the intended target of Flight 93 as confirmed by captured Al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

The statement specificies its source: the 9/11 Commission. Now the sentence ought to be rewritten (the Commission didn't rule anything, and calling KSM a "mastermind" is contentious), and it ought to be better sourced (with a page number), but it's not unsourced. (I remember reading that in the report.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 01:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Citing the 9/11 Commission Report

When citing the 9/11 Commission Report, should we refer to the Chapter and page number (for example, Chapter 5 page 155) or to the citation WITHIN the 9/11 Commission Report (for example, Footnotes on Chapter 5 footnote #40)? And how do you go about citing classified information? The 9/11 Commission cites most reports from the CIA and other intelligence agencies as "Intelligence report." So we take it on the word of the 9/11 Commission? Does that fail WP:V?--Pixelface 00:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Several questions here. First, it is sufficient to cite the 9/11 Report, although it is also acceptable to cite the footnote in the report when appropriate. (Yes, it's best to list the page number, with little "ibid"s.) In some cases, especially where there may be reason to doubt the 9/11 Commission's source, it may be appropriate to list the source that the Report lists. You can't cite classified info, obviously, so in that case you have to cite just the report. It gets a little awkward to say "The 9/11 Report said that the CIA said that KSM said that OBL said. . .", but we'll make do. I don't think it violates WP:V, for this reason. If I publish a scholarly paper that says performed a certain experiment and got a certain report, there's no way that you, on Wikipedia, can verify that my results are what I say they are. But you can still cite my paper. It's the same here. If a significant group of people doubt one of the Report's statements (such as that Bush and not Cheney gave authorization for planes to be shot down), then you might want to say "According to the 9/11 Report. . ." But if no one doubts that, for example, KSM said the intended target of Flight 93 was the U.S. Capitol, then you can simply footnote the source of the statement.

Intended targets

I'm the one who added the CN tag above. I wondered which page it was on.

Should I cite multiple pages for the intended targets? I'm wondering how to incorporate page numbers and footnote numbers and *their* page numbers.

Page 14 of the 9/11 Commission report says "Jarrah's objective was to crash his airliner into symbols of the American Republic, the Capitol or the White House. He was defeated by the alerted, unarmed passengers of United 93."

Page 45 of the 9/11 Commission report says "We are sure that the nation owes a debt to the passengers of United 93. Their actions saved the lives of countless others, and may have saved either the Capitol or the White House from destruction."

Page 155 says "Bin Ladin, Atef, and KSM developed an initial list of targets. These included the White House, the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and the World Trade Center. According to KSM, Bin Ladin wanted to destroy the White House and the Pentagon, KSM wanted to strike the World Trade Center, and all of them wanted to hit the Capitol. No one else was involved in the initial selection of targets." leads to footnote 40 of chapter 5 on page 492 of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Page 166 says "Atta--whom Bin Ladin chose to lead the group--met with Bin Ladin several times to receive additional instructions, including a preliminary list of approved targets: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Capitol." leads to footnote 92 of chapter 5 on page 496 of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Page 242 says "Bin Ladin told Binalshibh to instruct Atta and the others to focus on their security and that of the operation, and to advise Atta to proceed as planned with the targets discussed before Atta left Aghanistan in early 2000--the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the White House, and the Capitol. According to Binalshibh, Bin Ladin said he preferred the White House over the Capitol, asking Binalshibh to confirm that Atta understood this preference." leads to footnote 141 of chapter 7 on page 530 of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Page 244 says "Atta explained that Hanjour was assigned to attack the Pentagon, Jarrah the Capitol, and that both Atta and Shehhi would hit the World Trade Center. If any pilot could not reach his intended target, he was to crash the plane." and leads to footnote 147 of chapter 7 on page 530 of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Page 248 says "They discussed targets in coded language, pretending to be students discussing various fields of study: "architecture" referred to the World Trade Center, "arts" the Pentagon, "law" the Capitol, and "politics" the White House" and leads to footnote 166 on page 531. Footnote 167 of chapter 7 on page 531 of the 9/11 Commission Report also discusses targets.

On page 326 it says "the White House or the Capitol had narrowly escaped direct attack."

Page 341 says "A National Intelligence Estimate distributed in July 1995 predicted future terrorist attacks against the United States--and in the United States. It warned that this danger would increase over the next several years. It specified as particular points of vulnerability the White House, the Capitol, symbols of capitalism such as Wall Street, critical infrastructure such as power grids, areas where people congregate such as sports arenas, and civil aviation generally."

--Pixelface 03:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an old message, but according to the book "Masterminds of Terror: The Truth Behind the Most Devastating Attack The World Has Ever Seen" by Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed said the intended target was strictly Capitol Hill. ----DanTD (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to conjecture if the Capitol had been hit and had the hijackers been able to do so before the world was alerted to their heinous intentions what the response of the U.S. would have been to say 200 or so Congressmen and Senators being killed. Suspect the muslim world owes a incalculable debt of gratitude to the brave, heroic Americans who challenged these animals acting in the name of islam, however falsely, and took the plane down before they were successful in their evil plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets Roll/Roll It

This part of the article is not sourced properly - I read the entire 9/11 Commission Report and did not see this:

It was widely reported that Beamer's last audible words were "Let's roll." However, the 9/11 Commission Report states that Beamer was more likely saying "roll it," referring to a drink cart that was being used as a battering ram. Regardless, the term "Let's roll" would later become the war cry for those fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

I propose it be adjusted so that it's properly cited, or be deleted. I do know that there are verifiable sources to attest that Jefferson said she could hear Beamer say "Okay....Let's Roll" apparently to others nearby, after putting down the phone. I know that the CVR transcript, near the very end, has someone saying "Roll it" in english as the passenger revolt is apparently taking place. However, this would hardly be something that directly contradicts Jefferson's account since the phone used to place the call to Jefferson was in the rear of economy in the plane -- way too far from the cockpit for the CVR to pick it up through a closed door.NYDCSP 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the source of this controversy was a NY Times article. "New Details in Battle of Hijackers and Passengers to Control Plane. Matthew Wald, The New York Times, July 23, 2004". The relevant passage is, "Then a passenger yelled, "Roll it!" While earlier accounts reported the phrase as "Let's roll," which was repeated in speeches by President Bush and became the title of a bestseller, some aviation experts have speculated that this was actually a reference to a food cart, being used as a battering ram". However, I cannot locate the entire text of the article, so it would seem to be insufficient as a cite. Also, the columnist may simply have mistaken the CVR recording for the cell phone transcript. Bulbous 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This just reinforces the notion that this content should be deleted from this article.NYDCSP 03:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right; but not just this article is affected. There are two or three others that have the same statements in them. If you edit one, you should edit them all. Bulbous 05:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will work on that. In the meantime, I'm going to delete it here.NYDCSP 15:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

npov? and incorrect/contradictory

"Mark Bingham's "let's roll" has become a national catchphrase, with President Bush himself using it in several speeches. To this date, it is amazing that a homophobic President would quote such a hero."

This not only disagrees with the rest of the article as to who said it, but seems a little off from a point of view perspective. Is it verified who actually said it?

Get rid of it. It's inappropriate for a Wiki article. Fatrb38 (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

confusing redirects and disambigs

Please see my comment at Talk:United 93. --Mathew5000 20:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

why are the terrorists named Harry Potter, Hermoine Granger, Ron Weasley and Lord Voldermort??!?!? Talk about disrespect on someone's part...

It's called having a sense of humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.44.255 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Some things should not be satirized...Jersey John (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ziad Jarrah Recording

It says that Jarrah said "Ladies and gentlemen, here [is] the captain, please sit down, keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit." to air traffic control. Could the "here [is]" actually be "hear", as in listen to the captain, for "Ladies and gentlemen, hear the captain, please sit down, keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit."? Jamie550 21:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories

It appears that this section is under serious attack by vandals again. There are reasons quoted for its removal, but none of which hold up to scrutiny. The primary rationale seems to be a question of sources, despite the fact that all claims have been widely reported on the internet, and the citations given include ABC news and a published university treatise. Reliability of sources for this section is NOT an issue. If there is a challenge to any particular item, let it be stated and resolved by supplementing additional sources. To remove the whole section is political vandalism. It's perfectly legitimate for editors to refuse to engage in rational thinking, but it is not ok to censure those who do. Bulbous 01:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not confuse a content dispute with vandalism. They are two very different things. -- MisterHand 01:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

They certainly are. So, how do we differentiate between the two? In this case, content has been removed due to WP:RS challenge. However, some of that material is properly sourced and the rest can (and will be). So, if RS is not a legitimate reason for its repeated removal, and no other valid reason is given, that leaves us with vandalism. Bulbous 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Dismissing those who don't agree with you as "vandals" is not a constructive way to build consensus or result disputes. -- MisterHand 14:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I always assume good faith. However, when repeated blanking occurs while ignoring invitations to comment on the talk page, the benefit of the doubt tends to get lost. Bulbous 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The documentary "Loose Change: The Final Cut", shows news footage of journalists commenting on debris found miles from the Flight 93 crash site, with footage of the debris. It also has an interview with a military official who says flight 93 was intercepted by military aircraft, but was not shot down, reversing earlier claims that the flight was not intercepted. It also points out that the families of the survivors were not allowed to talk about what they heard on the voice recorder, and that the recording of the last three minutes of the flight has never been released. It also has footage of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying before the Commission about shoot-down orders. Mineta testified that there was apparently a shoot-down order, that planes had been scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft, that he had witnessed exchanges between Vice President Cheney and staff tracking Flight 77, but that he was not aware of precisely what orders had been given (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y).118.4.190.177 (talk) 03:43, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Loose Change is not a reliable source. Hut 8.5 16:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source?: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html --Solde9 (talk) 03:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No; it exists solely to promote a conspiracy theory that is mostly rejected even by other 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Advocacy organizations like that cannot be acceptable sources, esxcept to document the theory itself in an article on the conspircy theory. Acroterion (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

CSPAN is a reliable source though! Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying on CSPAN before the Commission about shoot-down orders. Mineta testified that there was apparently a shoot-down order, that planes had been scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft, that he had witnessed exchanges between Vice President Cheney and staff tracking Flight 77, but that he was not aware of precisely what orders had been given. He said planes were scrambled to intercept flight 93 from Otis AFB. (see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y)118.4.190.177 (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Where is the "neutral point of view" in this article? This article is the official version of events stated as fact, with all conflicting evidence excluded.118.4.190.177 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Like what? I suspect by "conflicting evidence" you mean half baked, misinformed garbage paraded around by people that want to believe anything but the obvious answer. I suggest any budding September 11th conspiracy theorist out there read the Popular Mechanics report on these poisonous myths. TastyCakes (talk) 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a page for conspiracy theories, it is not this page. No reputable sources or experts question what happened to Flight 93. Including it on this page would be an insult. It simply doesn't belong here. Supertheman ^(talk) 05:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed text

Here's the removed text:

A number of allegations have been made about the truthfulness of the official report into the crash of Flight 93:

• Conspiracy theorists say that pieces of Flight 93 were found three miles and eight miles away from the crash site and suggest that this may be evidence of a shoot down.
• Jim Hoffman says there is a three-minute discrepancy in the cockpit voice recording immediately prior to the flight's crash. The cockpit voice recorder transcripts end at 10:03 a.m., but Cleveland Air Traffic Control reported that Flight 93 went out of radar contact at 10:06 a.m., and FAA radar records note a time of 10:06 a.m. Seismologists record an impact at 10:06:05 a.m., for a couple of seconds.
• Paul Thompson says fighter jets were closer to Flight 93 at the time of the crash than is stated in the official record. He also says that witnesses reported a small white jet near the impact site soon after the crash.

Sources used:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=401315&in_page_id=1770 - This is a good source, but we already have a section on "Orders to shoot down plane questioned" - this is not needed
• http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/flight93.html - self-published site, not reliable
• Who cares what Jim Hoffman says. He's not an geology or seismology expert. Sources used include http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/wireStory?id=1835272 - link broken, no name of article, date or other details provided. Nonetheless, the ref supports the time the plane crashed. The time is mentioned elsewhere in the article, and this discrepancy is covered elsewhere.
• http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf - this explains that "seismic signals across the network for Flight 93 are not as strong and clear as the WTC case" and "uncertainty is only due to seismic velocity at the uppermost crust near the surface in which the Lg waves propagated."
• We really would need a reliable source, such as a newspaper article that talks about Jim Hoffman and this discrepancy.
• Who cares what Paul Thompson says. He is a psychologist and environmentalist, and has no relevant expertise. No reason to give him undue weight coverage in this article. These questions are covered elsewhere.
• http://www.flight93crash.com/ - site is not a reliable source

In all, this article needs a bit of work to bring it up to acceptable standards, with reliable sources only. These sources given in the conspiracy section will not pass muster when bringing this article through review as a good article candidate or featured article. --Aude (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. However, if your intention is to improve this article, than you will apply your valid concerns to the *entire* article, not just the single section. If your concern is WP:RS, then let's go through everything. And the immediate remedy should be an attempt to find a better source rather than censure. Bulbous 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:NPOV#Undue weight must be followed. That means, at most a link to the flight 93 section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. --Aude (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please review the "Undue Weight" section. Also, please refer to the "Information Suppression" and "Moral and Political points of view". There is no basis to suppress the main points of this section. In any case, we're not even talking about points of view. There are none being put forward in this section. These are all un-accounted for facts, and the fact that they are mentioned in another article does not preclude their being listed here. In fact, they more properly belong here than elsewhere. The fact that the section was entitled "Conspiracy Theories" was an attempt to discredit the information being presented therein. In fact, there are no "theories" being presented at all. Perhaps "Discrepancies" or "Unexplained occurrences" may be a better section title for when better sources are found for the facts presented. Bulbous 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. The first item does present a theory. It will be re-written. Bulbous 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am now focusing on reliably sourcing the points presented and will be working them into the main body of the article where they are (in some cases) already mentioned. Bulbous 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So why was there no body parts, luggage, wreckage at the crash site, things that are always found in evry other plane crash of this size? There is a 6-8 mile debris patch at another location, which shows it broke up while high in the sky and around that location.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it hit the ground doing over 500 miles an hour? Have you seen every other plane crash of this size? Have you ever seen a plane crash of this size doing that kind of speed? I suspect you haven't... TastyCakes (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of comments are citing corporate television networks as a reputable source. These are not sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.179.2 (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The movie on the fate of United Airline Flight 93 shows information that tends to support the conspiracy theory. The portions of the movie depicting the fighter jets are inaccurate. The F-16s do not exist in the configuration shown in the movie. Why would there be censorship on the physical appearance of a plane? F-16s always have the wingtip missile rail, missiles may be absent, but to have no rack is something I have never come across in all the references I have seen or read in the past 30 years.--Hschantang (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Time of crash/Black Box

I moved the reference to the time the CVR and FDR data ended to the "Black Box" section. I think that "FAA Data" accurately summarizes "FDR, CVR, ATC, radar and impact site data sets" as mentioned in the 9/11 report as establishing the impact time. Bulbous 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"FAA data" is vague. We should be specific, with the link to the FDR data right there, so as not to confuse people about "FAA data that is not available to the public." - it certainly is available. --Aude (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to be more specific. However, if you want to do so, you must be accurate as well. The quote above (and cite provided in the article) mention 5 datasets that they based their decision on. You continue to mention only 2. That is neither inclusive nor accurate. In addition, please note that I have dropped the "not publicly available" wording based on the cite provided, because a slight case could be made that the FDR data has been made public in the form of unverifiable printouts. However, the spirit of the point is that none of the raw data is available to the public. A transcript of the CVR data is not at all sufficient. Bulbous 13:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

NTSB has provided FDR .csv files and other raw data to the public. [1] All one has to do is ask. [2] --Aude (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your last edit is a step in the right direction, although you still continue to place emphasis on the FDR and CVR over the other datasets. That's your point of view, not a matter of fact. It's too bad that FOIA specifically precludes CVR release other than in transcript form. Bulbous 19:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Out of respect for family members, the CVR audio (for this or other plane crashes) are not made public. (except for transcripts) But, the family members, along with some journalists [3] and others, have listened to the CVR and concur. [4] [5] Do you not believe family members? I'm sure they would be interested in discrepancies, but they accept what all this data says. --Aude (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The family members were were permitted to listen to the CVR recording under heavy guard, after signing strict non-disclosure agreements. They were repeatedly told that the recording ended at 10:03 a.m. That's certainly not the same as independant third-party analysis. Essentially, with regards to this data, we can only accept the word of the administration as public verification of the data will not be allowed. Bulbous 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Passengers, not just Hijackers

• Since there is a heading for "Hijackers", shouldn't there be a heading for "Passengers"? It would be helpful to have a list of all those on board in the beginning of the article.

Not necessary. A separate list would be lengthy, and there exists a Memorial site linked in External Links. Descriptions regarding the passenger's activity within the plane is described throughout the article. KyuuA4 04:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest two additions related to factual evidence.

1. I would appreciate more information about the remains of the crash. Were any body parts (even if just bones) recovered? Were any parts of the plane recovered? Were any luggage, passports, or other identifications recovered? These kind of questions may seem insignificant, but in light of wide-spread denial of the over-all facts, any details of the remains helps to establish the factual basis of this history.
2. The article does not make clear whether the general public was able to hear any part of the original black box flight recording. I, as a member of general public, did hear the final seconds of the black box recording, from the PBS Newshour web site which reported on the trial of the co-conspirator. I suggest the article should make clear that the general public was able to hear, replayed in news reports, actual audio from the black box.

&mdash 99.246.159.164 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide a source for the second item, it could be added. But, in fact, all references indicate that the final seconds of the CVR recording have not been released to the general public. Bulbous 12:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rothenberg

I seem to remember reading that he used to be in the Israeli Defense Forces and is likely to have resisted, only to have his throat cut because he didn't realize there was a hijacker seated behind him as well. Perhaps this is relevant to the article, perhaps not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.26.29 (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, the guy I was thinking of was Daniel Lewin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.26.29 (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Information are needed on the remains of the crash. Early TV reports (I think from Fox) could not show any rest of the flight... Which is not realistic... If there is no remain of the crash the article must say so and point out that it is just a bit strange..

Edward Felt

Although numerous sites mention that Glen Cramer, the supervisor who monitored (but did not answer) Edward Felt's call has been gagged by the FBI, none of them are reliable enough to use as a cite. This is a problem with researching this article - mainstream news media won't touch anything outside of the official Hollywood storyline.

A request for mediation on the subject is definitely not warranted. Bulbous (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Emergency landing in Cleveland?

What's the official explanation of this: [6]? Should I include it in the article? --Piotr Mitas (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I had heard about this, and know pretty much that. That the plane landed in Ohio, the passengers got out and went to a hanger for a few hours, and then leave. There are satellite pictures of this as well? I don't know, but I think it's worth looking into. - OttOO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.197.208 (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The identification as flight 93 was a mistake - the flight was actually Delta Airlines Flight 89. See [7], and note the story was subsequently replaced with a notice saying it was factually incorrect [8]. Please don't add this to the article. Hut 8.5 15:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the journalist's (Liz Foreman's) apparent retraction/correction in February 2006, it was flight 1989, not 89. http://www.911myths.com/html/93_landed_in_cleveland.html Unfortunately, the link from this one is broken. So... no orginal source? Jcblackmon (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

An archived version can be found here. Adding something to the article based on a news story that was retracted for being factually inaccurate is clearly a very bad idea. Hut 8.5 17:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Hut. I wasn't suggesting that it be added, just addressing the earlier/above confusion.--Jcblackmon (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Christian Adams

Why does Christian Adams redirect here? - Kittybrewster ☎ 18:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Only 37 Passengers?

Why were there only 37 passengers on this large plane and long expensive flight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.25.203 (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this really that significant? Passenger loads had been falling in the 2000-2001 recession, which hurt the airlines considerably. Also, it was Tuesday morning in a Post-Labor Day week-a lot more people were going back to school and work. Otherwise, it just happened to be an exceptionally light load on a flight that typically had light passenger loads on Tuesday mornings in September 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.82.213 (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's been theorized that light-load early-morning flights were chosen by the planners so as to have small numbers of passengers who might do something that could upset the plans. (Guess that one didn't quite work out...)

--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Source? -- Veggy (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

don't have it at my fingertips, or I would have mentioned it; it was a reputable news source, as I recall.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC's "As it Happened" claims 40 were killed. I watched it again today (09.11.10) and reminded me of this article. It was originally broadcasted in 2007 according to the final credits. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the 40 figure includes the crew (7) and excludes the hijackers (4). The 9/11 commission report says (p.11) that there were 37 passengers and 4 hijackers, but it doesn't seem to say anything about the number of crew. Hut 8.5 19:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Data table on Nationalities

Well, someone added a data table on passenger nationalities for all 4 flights. Is that relevant? I think not. KyuuA4 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Double-lined ref

{{reflist}}. I made it double-lined, but reverted due to a discussion - which obviously hasn't been resolved yet, or made into a policy or essay. Next, the main reason I've read so far was because some people using IE6 or Safari 3 can't see double-columned refs. Too bad for them. Upgrade their browser. IE7, Safari 4, Firefox 2-3, Opera everything, they can all see double-lined refs. Plus, it makes the article really long with only one line, and half the page seems empty. I know I need to proofread my ramble, but please consider it. Its a really minor issue, but I'd like to know your opinion.--haha169 (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If "too bad for them" summarizes your views, let me rebut by saying that Wikipedia needs to remain accessible to all users and having a continuous reflist doesn't detract from anyone's ability. Moreover, two columns don't save that much space as references wrap around two or three times over. People who use IE can't even see multiple columns anyway, so reflist|2+ is just a Firefox issue mostly. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You certain? Aside of IE7- and Safari, it works on pretty much all other popular browsers. Using reflst|2, it doesn't work on IE and Safari, but using only reflist, it doesn't work for all browsers. using reflist|2 doesn't harm anyone at all. Secondly, I always find it easier if there are 2 columns, since I can find errors more easily, but I guess that's opinion. If you really want to keep it as only one row, fine. Like I said, it's a minor issue. --haha169 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

In all my years on wiki I've used whatever brand of firefox was current at the time, and have never had a problem seeing double column refs or any other type of ref list, as far as I know.:) Sticky Parkin 02:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I first noticed it here and found an older discussion on the matter. Either way, I think people hold multiple columns to be something greater than it is. Remember, it doesn't shrink the number of refs or make them smaller in any way—it just takes one-half of the list and sandwiches it into one half the space it used to half. Meaning, it really saves no space at all because the lines run over. -- Veggy (talk) 11:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the Muslim Theological Justification?

There is no discussion of the hijacker's motivation for carrying out this attack, and how the hijackers had nothing but utter contempt for the lives of the passengers. I see muslims all around Ohio now and they scare me to death because I know my life means absolutely nothing to them. george (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussing motivation is out of scope for this article. The best place to look is Al-Qaeda#Ideology and the linked article there Qutbism which discusses the extreme ideology. Do realize that most Muslims are moderate and don't agree with Al Qaeda tactics which have also been used against large numbers of Muslims. [9] --Aude (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to touch on the hijackers' motivation. Other hijacking articles certainly discuss the motivation of the hijackers. I'd prefer this to be 1 paragraph with a prominent link to September 11, 2001 attacks#Attackers and their motivation which goes into much greater detail than belongs in this article. BTW, I doubt your life means absolutely nothing to Muslims, and this discussion would be about the motivation of these hijackers, not some theological argument. Tempshill (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the views of the terrorists that acted on September 11th are in no way the dominant views of Islam. I'm sure that the Muslim individuals that you are referring to hold your life in very high esteem. Personally, I find this statement offensive and irrelevant to the article. To use the somewhat cliched comparison, assuming the ideas of Islamic terrorists to be the views of Islam as a whole is equivalent to assuming that the ideas of the Ku Klux Klan or other Christian terrorist groups are the views of Christianity as a whole. Please learn more about Islam. DruidODurham (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Main page thumbnail

I really think that the thumbnail image on the main page should be changed. The current image does not look very good as a thumbnail, and it's hard to tell exactly what the image is without looking at its original size. I personally think that the drawing of the flight path (Image:UA93 path.svg) should be used instead as it's today's featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFA is probably the place to discuss this. I'm concerned with the image you recently loaded, though. I don't think it meets WP:NFCC requirements, specifically regarding the significance of the photo. What does it add that a free version of a United Airlines 767, such as this, doesn't? Is the serial number that important? -- Veggy (talk) 01:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I got the idea to upload that image after doing the same to D. B. Cooper (another featured article), where I uploaded a copyrighted photo of the exact aircraft he hijacked. I think it has somewhat of a historical value to see the exact plane that was involved in the hijacking before it took place. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Jarrah Family Reaction

The piece could be strengthened by including the response of Jarrah's family to the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.194.63.129 (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable source with this info, we could add it. --98.223.179.75 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A link to the Jarrah entry would do. The family's shocked reaction is cited there.

Memorials

Can the street called US Flight Ninety-Three in Marshall, Texas be mentioned? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this?  Sandstein  11:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Other People in the Revolt

I think that there should be more information about other people who took part in trying to breach the cockpit after the hijackers entered the cockpit. The Beatles Fan (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Any additional information is always welcomed provided it cites reliable sources. I have tried including what I could find from reliable sources off the internet, but some books may go into further detail. -- Veggy (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Beamer, not Burnett

As the article reads (right now): "Tom Burnett made several phone calls to his wife beginning at 09:30:32 from rows 24 and 25, though he was assigned a seat in row four.[31][38] Burnett explained that the plane had been hijacked by men claiming to have a bomb. He also remarked that a passenger had been knifed and that he believed the bomb threat was a ruse to control the passengers.[38] During one of Tom Burnett's calls, his wife informed him of the attacks on the World Trade Center and he replied that the hijackers were "talking about crashing this plane ... Oh my God. It's a suicide mission."[39] He ended his last call by saying, "c'mon guys, let's roll"[39]His wife wrote a book about it called "Let's Roll"."

[Todd Beamer], not [Tom Burnett] said this. The "Let's Roll" book was written by Lisa Beamer.

Cabreet (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone just added the "let's roll" text, changing what was there before. It's now corrected. --Aude (talk) 07:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Question

In the "boarding" section, it reads:

Between 07:03 and 07:39 Eastern Time, the team of four hijackers checked in for the flight.[21] At 07:03, al-Ghamdi checked in without any luggage while al-Nami checked in two bags.[19] At 07:24, Al-Haznawi checked in one bag and at 07:39, Jarrah checked in without any luggage. Al-Haznawi was the only hijacker selected for extra scrutiny by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS).[21] Jarrah called his girlfriend in Germany from an airport payphone before he boarded and said "I love you" three times before abruptly hanging up.[22] His checked bag underwent extra screening for explosives, with no extra scrutiny required by CAPPS at the passenger-security checkpoint.[23] None of the security checkpoint personnel reported anything unusual about the hijackers.[19]

I bolded the "his." Who is this referring to? Jarrah was the last person mentioned, but it says above that he checked in without any luggage. Spencer^T♦C 19:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentences were out of order. I have updated the section. Thank you for pointing this out. --Aude (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Islamic vs Islamist

The opening states that the aircraft was hijacked by 'Islamic' terrorists, not too big a problem but Al-Qaeda, as defined in the Al-Qaeda page is more properly an Islamist organization. Was wondering if it would be more approriate to label the hijackers as such. Nableezy (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

does this make sense?

the article says "Most of the aircraft wreckage was found near the impact crater", but look at the photograph. if that photo was taken before the clean up was done, where the hell is the aircraft "wreckage"? there are no pieces of the fuselage, wings, no nothing. when in avation history has the plane disintegrated? when has there ever been nothing left of the plane?

i'm not a conspiracy theorist, especially when it comes to 9/11, but i really find this strange. Statesboropow (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And if you take a look at the photos below the aerial shot, you'll see exactly what you're talking about—fuselage, pieces of aircraft, engine... -- Veggy (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

okay, but there are no parts of the plane anywhere near the impact zone. Statesboropow (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

A consistent observation in high-energy aircraft impacts is how little is left, and how small the pieces are. Apart from large forgings such as the landing gear, airplanes hitting objects at high speed turn into quite small debris. I know of several crash sites in cultivated terrain, and decades after the site is cleaned up, new debris is plowed up every spring. The impact zone is the place where the greatest fragmentation would be expected. Acroterion _(talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How did the engines come to be buried. Boeing jet engines are designed to snap off when structural integrity is compromised; this is so the delicate wing structures are not shredded mid-air if an engine problem arises. Looks like the engine next to the excavator was buried quite deep. Perhaps the rotational motion of the turbine blades dug into the earth like a corkscrew. What do you say, Viggy? SethVogelman (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The engines are usually the heaviest component of an airliner, and therefore usually penetrate the farthest. Bad mechanic (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

i was wondering if this crash site was consistant with what is found in similar crashes. but what about the bodies? were they burned beyond recognition? or did they suffer the same fate as the plane? 64.26.89.82 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As a layman, I am in no way qualified to definitively state what would happen, but I can make an educated guess. Crashes where intact bodies are recovered, to my understanding, are crashes where a midair explosion or decompression occurred which allowed them to be ejected from the craft intact before the final impact with the ground. With no midair explosion or decompression, everyone on the plane would have remained in the plane up to and during the impact. Considering that the aircraft struck the ground at an estimated 563 miles per hour, and that the human body is combustible and considerably frailer than the metal frame of an aircraft, when looking at what the impact did to the aircraft itself, it seems very likely to me that there would be no significant human remains left behind. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

USAir Flight 427 was a similar impact, but at less than half the velocity. The St. Petersburg Times article [10] notes that most of the remains in that incident were removed in 1-gallon Ziplock bags - 1200 for 127 people. I doubt it would be possible to separate many of the remains from Flight 93 from the soil. It's quite literally a gravesite. Acroterion _(talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation is correct. People vastly underestimate the forces involved in high velocity plane crash like this one. There is very little, if anything, left of the bodies. Bad mechanic (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cell phones

It says they made two cell phone calls from the flight. Aren't you not allowed to use cell phones on airplanes in the United States? --76.167.241.125 (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you give a damn about that particular rule in those circumstances? There's nothing to stop anyone except the system dropping you as you cross service areas. Acroterion _(talk) 12:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

at what altitude were the flights made at? because its my belief that cell phones cant get a signal in flight. Statesboropow (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No cell phones DO work in high altitudes (unless your cell phone has a bad connection even on the ground, in that case then it prob wont work.) its just that they can interfere with plane transmissions because of the signals. Thats why your not supposed to use a phone on the plane unless its one of the plane phones.--Whitedragon254 (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have in fact tried keeping active my own cell phone (a Nokia 3310 with rock-steady connection on the ground) during take-off (once studied had shown it poses no threat). The connection dropped quickly and steadily, and it reached zero signal strength far before we reached cruising altitude. Of all the conspiracy theories of 9/11, this is the only one I can't shake off. I would love to see this elaborated in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.40.95 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Cell phones working at high altitudes was only possible after 2005 with OmniTRACS technology. Why American Airlines would invest so much in this technology if before that phones worked so well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.227.211 (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Cell phones working on the GSM standard can have a range up to 35 km (under certain conditions). According to latests investigations, cell phone signals can not (never could) interfere with the onbord electronics of a plane or the planes transmissions. Nevertheless to simplify matters the ban of cell phones on flights is being kept up within the European Union. They just passed the law a bit too fast to retract now. ;-) I do not know how it is handled in the US.

"excluding" should read "including"

The article states that "The plane crashed in a field in Stonycreek Township, near Shanksville, in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, about 80 miles (130 km) southeast of Pittsburgh and 150 miles (240 km) northwest of Washington, D.C., killing all 40 people aboard, excluding the hijackers." Surely that should read "including the hijackers" since they were also killed?

Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it just need re-phrasing the original intention should have been the 40 does not include the hijackers not the killing all bit. MilborneOne (talk)

Verifiability

"Val McClatchey had been watching footage of the attacks when she heard the plane. She saw it briefly, then heard the impact. The crash knocked out the electricity and phones. McClatchey grabbed her camera and took the only known picture of the smoke cloud from the explosion.[64][65] Conspiracy theorists have accused her of manufacturing the photograph.[66]"

The mention of Val McClatchey's photo is unnecessary and the claim that it is fake is difficult to verify. Searching her name seems only to turn up conspiracy theorists' websites. I think that the last quoted sentence should be removed. It is distracting from the rest of the article content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.93.56 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it, this page is no place for wacko conspiracy claims. The FBI, and various other agencies have examined the photo and verified it's authenticity. Supertheman ^(talk) 05:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Age of the plane? How old was the plane?

Age of the plane? How old was the plane? - What year was it buildt? and where did it usually fly?Nunamiut (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It would have had to be older than 2 years. In 1999 the boeing 757-200 series was replaced by the Boeing 757-300 series. according to sources cited here on WP.

N591UA was ship 718 and was delivered new 28 June 1996. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Take-off Time?

The article follows the 9/11 Commission Report and various transcripts of conversations, in identifying the take-off time of Flight 93 as 8:41. However, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics gives a wheels-off time of 8:28. Similarly, for Flight 175, the take-off time was 8:14 in the Commission Report, but 8:23 in the BTS:

http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/dstat/OntimeSummaryDepatures.xml

The scheduled departure time and the actual departure time (rolling back from the gate) are both the same in the BTS as in the Commission's Report.

I am considering inserting the BTS wheels-off times for this flight and Flight 93 in the articles. Johnm307 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I would stick with the 9/11 Commission report, which must have done more investigation into this than a generic compiler of airline statistics. Hut 8.5 22:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's questionable whether the Commission did investigate this, given how grossly underfunded the Commission was. The report doesn't mention the issue. Also, if the Wheels-off time is measured and reported automatically by electronics in the aircraft, there has to be some explanation for the discrepancy, on the order of ten minutes for both planes.Johnm307 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

They did pay some attention to when the flight took off. On p.10 they explain that the flight was late, give reasons why, and compare the scheduled takeoff time of 93 to the other flights. In the footnotes (p.455) they explain one potential discrepancy in the takeoff time, and cite an interview and a briefing covering the issue. I don't think it's likely that they would have got the time wrong by ten minutes. Hut 8.5 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Other references supporting a time of 08:42: National Transportation Safety Board, FBI, MSNBC, PANYNJ, FAA, statement by FBI director, ABC, National Parks Service and plenty of others. Hut 8.5 23:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Page 10 and Footnote 63 on page 455 discuss the difference between the departure time and the takeoff time. Page 10 compares the usual taxi time of 15 minutes with that particular day's 40 minutes. I've found nothing in the Commission's Report that mentions the BTS wheels-off time of 8:28. As for the links you gave, the only one qualifying as actual evidence is the NTSB Flight Path Study. The others merely echo the claim. The discrepancy must be explained.Johnm307 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Small Amount of Crash Debris

I am mystified about one aspect of this crash. Why was there so little debris from the plane . Capt. Sullenberger who made the Hudson River landing was involved in crash investigation. His book talks about PSA flight 1771 that crashed after a passenger shot both pilots and himself. That plane hit the ground at 700 mph. Capt. Sullenbergers description of that scene was "the crash site looked like an outdoor rock concert where everyone had left trash all over a hillside"

I suggest adding a section on this and other unexplained aspects of this crash. Arydberg (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there's already an article on 11 September conspiracy theories.76.120.66.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC).

There was a lot of debris, but it was very small - which exactly matches the comment you quoted: it looks like trash, tiny bits of trash. There is nothing to be "mystified" about, and this page is no place for goofball conspiracy theories. None of that garbage belongs on this page, it would be a massive insult to those that died on Flight 93. Wiki has a page for that nonsense. Supertheman ^(talk) 05:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

See request for new web page below to specifically present and debunk conspiracy theories point-by-point. Redhanker (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Christian Adams (Again)

Christian Adams redirects here for some reason... Since his name is now in the news and probably will eventually end up in an article shouldn't the redirect be stopped? 74.195.68.96 (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly

The text should say clearly which words were in Arabic and which in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.70.240 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

In the first external link, bolded text shows English translation from Arabic.

United Airlines Flight 93 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

I propose "United Airlines Flight 93 9/11 Conspiracy Theory", or at least a section. It is important to address this since many of the organizations in 9/11 Truth movement which receive a heavy amount of web traffic and the Loose Change (film) series claim to have proven that it is impossible for an aircraft to have crashed at that site because there were, in the words of Dylan Avery and others in a debate with Popular Mechanics, no airplane parts, no wreckage and no bodies. Any claims to have found bodies or airplane parts is dismissed as lying as part of a government disinformation campaign. They claim there is NO evidence of a crash. This is sufficient "proof" for a significant number of people who have bought into the "no plane crash" theory. It is apparent by the number of web pages and organizations promoting this theory that this may be a deliberate and well-funded "false flag" disinformation campaign promoted by the same parties that supported and still support the 9/11 attacks to frame the US government and Israel as the "true terrorists" which planned the 9/11 attacks in order to frame an innocent Osama bin Laden (watch Loose Change, we have his word on it that he had no part in 9/11), and to justify invading Muslim Nations and murdering millions of innocents in an undeclared "War on Islam". (One might indeed wonder what party/ies would want to falsely blame US and Israel for harming and defaming innocent Muslims? And why and who would simply make up an elaborate theory that 93 did not crash into a field?) Wikipedia is the first place people would look for such information, and the absence of such a section would only be further proof to the conspiracy theorists that "somebody wants to hide the ?truth?". There is a well developed article on various creationist theories, that would be a good model to follow. It is better to present the theory and debunk it rather than to bury it in the shadows so that conspiracy websites are the only source. Redhanker (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed plenty of times before. Including conspiracy theories in an article on a mainstream topic (such as this one) gives undue weight to the conspiracy theory. Flight 93 is discussed in the article on 9/11 conspiracy theories. To follow your creationism analogy, though we have plenty of articles on creationism the subject is barely mentioned in the article on Evolution. Hut 8.5 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But at least it was mentioned. 9/11 conspiracy theories have received considerably more visibility than creationist theories, yet is evidently not even mentioned on this topic page. Why not a link to also see 9/11 conspiracy theories? Redhanker (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It's linked in the "September 11 attacks" template at the bottom. I should also point out that this isn't the main article on September 11, and that there is a "Conspiracy theories" section in the main September 11 attacks article. Discussing conspiracy theories here isn't like discussing creationism in the Evolution article, it's like discussing creationism in the articles on Natural selection or Mutation. I don't agree with your statement that creationism has received less publicity than 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hut 8.5 19:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think a mention of the fact that "the events surrounding Flight 93 are the subject or feature of some 9/11 conspiracy theories" and then direct to the 9/11 conspiracy page, or a reference "for discussion of Conspiracy Theories about Flight 93, see 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" is plenty appropriate. Shouldn't the reference go both ways? Mentioning the fact that "some people question this, as a link in a greater theory" is not giving undue weight to it if you label it as such. Comparing the creationism controversy to 9/11 conspiracy theories is a false equivalency, in my opinion, more realistic is the climate denial, which the page for global warming doesn't discuss but instead simply links to the controversy and public opinion pages.Morgainari (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this is mentioned anywhere, not that I could see in the article, but the choice of Flight #93 being intended to crash into the Capital or Whitehouse may have been significant/symbolic of the failed attempts by terrorists in 1993 ('93) just as the day "9-11" was chosen. Just a thought... and I'm sure this is documented or compared in some reference/resource, and if so, may be warranted in including within the article. No biggie if not, just wondering if it's a coincidence if not. Thank you. 63.131.4.149 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

narrow focus

The focus of the article is currently extremely narrow. It simply recounts events in chronological order. It doesn't say anything about the significance of the events, doesn't make any attempt to put anything in context. Surely there are verifiable sources that would allow more to be said than this skeletal outline. For example, there is a widespread interpretation that the actions of the passengers on flight 93 effectively made hijacking obsolete, since it showed that passengers knew that their only chance to survive would be to fight back. The article currently reads like a history of the Civil War that does nothing more than state the dates of battles, without discussing sectionalism, slavery, states' rights, or reconstruction.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrase

I was doing some work on this article and I noticed this:

As he walked through the wreckage, the only recognizable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached.

This is referenced to http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/09/1031115990570.html, where the original text is:

Walking in his gumboots, the only recognisable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached.

Clearly this is too close a paraphrase and is a copyright violation. To save me a lot of work can someone more familiar with the development of the article tell me if this is likely to be a common problem in the article? --John (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see this as copyvio -- how else are you going to describe that the only recognizable body part he saw was a piece of spinal cord, with five vertebrae attached?

One solution would be to slap the actual verbatim quote in quotation marks and cite the article. I don't think removing it entirely helps the article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think cite the other article is best, but eitherway is reasonable not copyvio. But while you consider that please consider this for accuracy reasons and because the Conspiritorial theorists love to hop on a false fact statement.

Para 4 says "Of the four aircraft hijacked on September 11 – the others were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 175 – United Airlines Flight 93 was the only one that failed to reach its hijackers' intended target." I think should read 'reach a planned target" as we have no clue what was the target and earlier admitted you only think a Washington Target probably intended, you even mention a few possibles. As for the below you suggest plagiarism certainty, so can someone explain why ,if you are quoting what a coroner said publically, or as reported in Age you can either quote him, or age and place in quotation marks to avoid any such plagiarism case, but in an encyclopedia still say what was found, to be accurate for historic reasons long after coronor's and age's records are lost or destroyed?--Robbygay (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly plagiarism. Is there likely to be much more like this in the article? I don't think it should be a quote either. Could you rewrite it in your own words? --John (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I've just checked and this was in the version promoted as FA in 2008, which should have been picked up in the review process. I guess standards were more relaxed then. What can we do? If it's just that one instance it's easy enough to fix, but if it's half the article that could be more problematic. --John (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I restored the problematic sentence after rewriting it in my own words. I will now have to recheck all the references. Anyone care to help? --John (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)