Talk:United Airlines Flight 93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article United Airlines Flight 93 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 11, 2008.
July 26, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / September 11, 2001 (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Terrorism (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Toolbox

Whisperer in the CeeCee Lyles' audio[edit]

Hmmm, why are we bizarrely ignoring this alarming detail? "...Very much...It was great!". Surely we don't need a secondary source to support what we can hear with our own ears? Plus, in an airborne aeroplane, whispers wouldn't even be audible, and where's the characteristic cabin noise, that GTE Verizon's Lisa Jefferson(*) also remarked, was strangely low in Todd Beamer's distress call (*she would know)??? Beingsshepherd (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

No mention of Delta 89?[edit]

NOT to be confused with Delta 1989 (which IS mentioned in this article); where's the mysterious Las Vegas-bound, Boeing 767 (with the 7112 Transponder code and no Bureau of Transportation Statistics record) which NEADS identified as flying 'really close together' with 1989? Beingsshepherd (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Nationalities[edit]

Is there a list of the nationalities of those on United 93, including the hijackers? Illegitimate Barrister 10:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.honorflight93.org/remember/?fa=passengers-crew
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks#United_Airlines_Flight_93 Beingsshepherd (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd
Thanks. Illegitimate Barrister 00:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)




Congressional Gold Medal[edit]

I am new to editing, but I am endorsing and adding to the worthy suggestion immediately below. The correct info and link is http://shuster.house.gov/press-releases/shuster-honors-fallen-heroes-of-september-11th-with-congressional-gold-medal/ rather than the reference note 111 which mentions an earlier pending legislative attempt; this press release at the above link, by the congressman from the district that sponsored the resolution announces that on Sept 10, 2014, the Gold Medal was presented to the Flight 93 Memorial (and others) on behalf of and in recognition of the entire flight's brave heroes. Speaker of the House and others performed the ceremony on Sept. 10 - this FWIW and FYI is the apparent settlement of the disputes over exactly whom should be given individual medals; its sort of a "group medal" compromise. 68.36.127.250 (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)JK

I have no idea how to edit this article but it seems that the folks have been awarded the Congressional Gold Medal.

Source: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/capitolinq/Flight-93-passengers-crew-receive-Congress-highest-honor.html I would suspect there is a better one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.132.68.70 (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Cell Phones[edit]

As in the articles about other planes on 9/11, NO calls were made by cell phones, it is physically impossible at the altitude and speed held by the plane. Wikipedia is not a place for lies.174.73.5.74 (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources indicate otherwise. Please do not insert your personal analysis into the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Truther Nuts[edit]

They claim there were no plane parts in the hole in PA. The whole thing was done by a missile, and used as an excuse to launch the second gulf war. Some attention should be paid to these curious people, for historical reasons, as the Pearl Harbor article does to that event's conspiracy types. Also, some links to the wealth of evidence of the plane crash in PA. The Popular Mechanics book "Debunking 9/11 Myths". is a good source for researchers. 76.102.148.112 (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever to pay attention to those nuts....here. But we do in articles dedicated to those conspiracy theories.--MONGO 12:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with MONGO's comments. We often have to fight them off from the factual articles about 9/11. David J Johnson (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, as long as they are mentioned somewhere. Maybe a link to there from here? But I'm glad to see some quality control in this article, certainly. 76.102.148.112 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Three Mile Island as potential target[edit]

Lloyd Jeff Dumas apparently mentions in his book [1] that Three Mile Island was in the flight path, and would have made a particularly destructive target. Not sure how good the information is either way, but if the Capitol Building/White House as target are just as much speculation, this would be an interesting theory to add. It also makes an important point about potential threats in general, I suppose. -- Beland (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Does it just mention that TMI was in the flight path, or discuss it as an intended target? The TMI angle was mentioned at the time I think, but I believe the sources concerning intent have always focused on Washington. I wouldn't say that TMI and the White House/Capitol recieved equivalent levels of speculation, the balance has always been tipped toward Washington. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
KSM did mention that nuclear power plants were considered but rejected due to a concern that the American response might be out of control. He and OBL both underestimated the response anyway but neither thought the plane impacts would result in the twin towers at the WTC collapsing.--MONGO 13:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
KSM also said the target of Flight 93 was strictly Capitol Hill. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of 9/11 Conclusion[edit]

Mongo has removed the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. So just wondering why? The passage was referenced including a number of citations from the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 commission, John Farmer.-- Esemono (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Farmer is a primary source and the only source used to support the section. Have these issues been printed elsewhere like another peer reviewed book?--MONGO 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
New York Times Article backs the book. He was the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 commission are you calling him a liar or that the 9/11 commission was lying? As outlined in the book the 9/11 commission all confirmed what he printed in his book-- Esemono (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The NYT piece is a review of Farmer's book...it doesn't back the book, it just reviews it. I'll look at the 9/11 Commissions transcripts.--MONGO 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that you own this article but Farmer is the 9/11 commission he was the Senior Counsel. So you're accusing him of lying? I thought wikipedia was about sources and facts not what you "smell" not what you want to censor because of a hunch-- Esemono (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not own any articles. Farmer was not on the Commission and I have yet to read all the sections from the Commissions report that pertain to this matter if any do. I will read through it by tomorrow.--MONGO 03:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I don't know what to call you, the bossman, Senior Admin, he-who-controls-this-page. Maybe I can help you with your original research. The times that were changed on Sept 17, 2001, the times Farmer refers to (you know the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 commission) are 9:24 and 9:34. Hope that helps. -- Esemono (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The article in the NYT, by Farmer and others, is from the Opinion section, so Farmer is the only source for this. I'm not prepared to take one author at his word here. This is something that needs to be investigated by historians, weighing all the information. Also, there's a blp problem with calling the fighter pilot a liar. Tom Harrison Talk 13:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
That's where I sit on the issue as well....a secondary source would be helpful, one performed in an investigative fashion and with the same conclusions would make it all factual.--MONGO 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Totally agree withTom Harrison and MONGO's comments above. We cannot rely on just one source. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Here is an NPR article that show the correct timeline. We know from public record that after the September 17, 2001 White House briefing the times were changed as Paul Wolfowitz and then Vice President Cheney on Sept 17, 2001 on an appearance on Meet the Press cited the changed timeline. -- Esemono (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC notice[edit]

I have opened a request for comment at Talk:Columbia Township, Lorain County, Ohio related to United Airlines Flight 93. Feel free to give your thoughts to it. Pyrotlethe "y" is silent, BTW. 04:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

How many passengers?[edit]

It says 33 at one point (in the sidebar) and 37 at another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.234.69.70 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)