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.
Article policies


Contents

[edit] 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).

[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)

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)

[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] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:[1]

  • 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.[2]
  • Jim Hoffman says there is a three-minute discrepancy in the cockpit voice recording immediately prior to the flight's crash.[2] The cockpit voice recorder transcripts end at 10:03 a.m.,[3] 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.[2] Seismologists record an impact at 10:06:05 a.m., for a couple of seconds.[4]
  • Paul Thompson says fighter jets were closer to Flight 93 at the time of the crash than is stated in the official record. [5] He also says that witnesses reported a small white jet near the impact site soon after the crash.[6][7]

Sources used:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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..

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Christian Adams

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)