Talk:United Airlines Flight 93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United Airlines Flight 93 article.
United Airlines Flight 93 is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.
Old and inactive discussion can be found at /archive.

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Rumsfeld Commentary about a shootdown

anyone seen this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84&mode=related&search

is this true? or was this a mistake? or more "mistaken recollection"?216.52.163.1 21:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)LUID

  • You know what this proves? Absolutly nothing. If someone would present this kind of "evidence" in court he would be probably fined for wasting the judge's time. Mieciu K 22:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
It certainly does not prove anything. That's why it's not in the main article. For for any rational person, however, it should raise questions about the "official" or "Hollywood" storyline. Either that, or else it should cast the administration in a poor light for constantly misspeaking themselves. Bulbous 03:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It proves (at the very least) that the Bush Administration cannot keep their stories straight. So, was it shot down or did it crash?216.52.163.1 14:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)LUID
Since when Donald Rumsfeld(one person)=Bush Administration(Many people), "cannot keep their stories straight"(?) lawyers say that "words are like grass thay don't mean anything only paper (documents) counts". He had a "slip of tongue" you never had any? The only thing this proves that Rumsfeld should think first and speak later and not the other way round. Mieciu K 15:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
If this were a single isolated incident, it wouldn't be worth mentioning. However, verbal slips and recantations and written retractions have been the norm rather than the exception throughout the entire investigation of this tragedy. That's part of the reason why people are so skeptical of the official record. "Fool me once, shame on — shame on you". Bulbous 02:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
You say slips have been the norm rather than the exception. But would we expect that to be the case? The very pattern you observe might well be evidence of purpose. Are you not concerned that the 'slips' could be intentional misinformation? Coat-trailing inviting the "9/11 truth movement" to make fools of themselves? Of course, some might say in reply that the government would not waste resources ensuring something they could expect to get for free in the natural course of things, but those who said that could be spreading disinformation on their own account, or at least might want to give that impression. Tom Harrison Talk 03:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit]

[edit] ===================================================

The article says "The 9/11 Commission found from the recordings that, contrary to what many had believed, the passengers did not succeed in entering the cockpit." I think that's a rather controversial statement. I would dispute it. It seems to me that the 9/11 Commission Report leaves that somewhat ambiguous. The passengers Did breach the cockpit AS the plane was in rapid descent, didn't they?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_Airlines_Flight_93_4005.html"