![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The real number of fatalities is uncertain. It was suggested to be 95 (65 AA passengers and 30 on ground) based on page 7 of "Mass Fatality Management for Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction" (PDF). U.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Command and the Office for Domestic Preparedness. August 2005. http://www.edgewood.army.mil/hld/dl/MFM_Capstone_August_2005.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-06-24." Other sources (citation needed) suggest different numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.176.90 ( talk) 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for this claim?
Some people have voiced doubts about whether a plane really crashed into the Pentagon. Video footage from a nearby Sheraton hotel was confiscated by the FBI. An amateur recording taken just after the impact does not give the impression that a plane had just hit the building.
If not, it should probably be taken out. -- GD 23:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Nitpicking time :D "Some people have voiced doubts about claims that the Pentagon was not hit ..." I'd put it "Some people have voiced doubts about claims that the Pentagon was hit ..." -andy 80.129.100.99 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC) The "not" is illogical. People claimed that the Pentagon *WAS* hit, and those other people DOUBTED it. ;)
It is very true that many educated people throughout the world (I wish someone made a survey!) have simply not found an explanation that clearly correlates the photographic evidence of the crash site and the official Flight 77 story. There may be an explanation, but the published photographs do not show clear evidence of the remnants of a large aircraft, and it is very logical that doubts have been raised. I don't care about conspiracies, I don't question any other story about 9-11, I make every effort to remain objective in anything I discuss. Shutting down and disregarding those who present these doubts is not fair. I have respectfully expressed in Wikipedia the fact that the same questions about Flight 77 have been raised independently throughout the world, but my contribution gets deleted within minutes no matter when I do it. WHY? I am not denying the official story of Flight 77, I am only saying that it is constantly debated by many. And that is true.
I know people are going to hate me for saying this, but I really think there should be a small section about the fact that there are so many conspiracy theories. I dispute nothing, it's just I think it's best to talk about it, rather than vaguely allude to it. For instance, the "witnesses" section clearly gives an indication that some feel the need to prove it happened. Somebody mentioned the moon landing conspiracies. Well, there is a section about them in the Moon_landing article, as stupid as they are. I guess some feel that precisely because too many people believe that no plane crashed into the Pentagon, it shouldn't be mentioned. My point of view is, the more people believe it, the more we should talk about it, otherwise the lack of comment just fuels the flame. Maybe I'll add a proposition here in the talk page later today. Ratfox 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is a proposition. I am open to suggestions and critics, you can make your own version if you want. I mainly ripped off other wikipedia articles. I just think there should be a section about it, that is all. Ratfox 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Due to the important political consequences of the 9/11 attacks, a number of conspiracy theories challenging the mainstream account have emerged. These propositions range from claims that the government of the United States had foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately let them happen, to allegations that the whole event was staged.
In particular, one of the most well-known theories contends that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, but by a smaller object (typically a missile or smaller aircraft). Various physical models are proponed claiming the damage to be insufficient for such an impact, and the witnesses are accused of having been paid off. The suspicions are fueled by the lack of clear video footage of the impact.
Due to the high visibility of the event, this theory is controversial amongst conspiracy theorists themselves, many of them now believing it was indeed flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. Some of them go as far as suggesting that the crash happened, but was engineered to make it appear that it did not, the purported goal being to divide, distract and discredit their community.
Okay. After waiting one week, I have now added my proposition to the page. I further suggest that no details of the theories should be given here, using instead the page dedicated to all 9/11 conspiracy theories, or eventually creating one just for this event.
I repeat, I think the hoax accusations are widespread enough to justify a small section. Even the moon landing page has such a section. Ratfox 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Due to the important political consequences of the 9/11 attacks, a number of conspiracy theories challenging the mainstream account have emerged. These propositions range from claims that the government of the United States had foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately let them happen, to allegations that the whole event was staged.
In particular, one of the most well-known theories, started by Thierry Meyssan in a book [1], contends that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, but by a smaller object (typically a missile or smaller aircraft). Though the book and its claims have drawn wide criticism from many sides, the theory is still popular with some conspiracy theorists.
Sigh. Tsk Tsk Tsk. I know I may sound like a typical conspiracy theorist, but the evidence is all there. You just simply have to look for it.
By the way, it's quite obvious that a small blip like that of a plane is not a Boeing 757. Sheared lamp posts in the area also suggest a path that the plane might have taken. Judge for yourself. 71.131.182.235 ( talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that I don't agree with the French guy's idea of the US launching a missile against the Pentagon. His "theory" got coverage in major media as the first conspiracy associated with the Pentagon though, and some people in France buy it. It really should be mentioned in the article. Anynobody 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If it was only the people in France! I feel ambivalent about giving this guy more coverage than he should get, but I guess he's the guy who brought the whole thing to mainstream attention... Ratfox 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The ability of a B757 do travel at 530 mph at an altitude of 10 ft should be proven before it is included in the page.Also how it was immune to the aileron reversal phenomenon at this speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.70.236 ( talk) 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
we lack the flight manifest which would put those hijackers aboard, couldn’t find one, if you stumble upon it, remove the tag. Quantumentanglement ( talk) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Captions should be written in a manner that they can act as a substitute for the image for people who cannot view them, or for the vision impaired, or others who are using screen readers to 'view' the photo. I changed the caption to Officially-released DOD footage from the Pentagon shows a "thin white blur" followed by an explosion as more descriptive of what the video shows than flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. Someone viewing the film will not see flight 77, but will see "thin white blur" (cited quote) followed by an explosion. 67.49.8.228 ( talk) 07:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit dismayed at the FAC process, that this article passed with outstanding issues. I don't think it is FA quality just yet. Not sure whether to bother with my time, but here are outstanding issues:
I have limited free time right now and periods of time with no internet access, while I am on wikibreak to work on this, but could help out when I do get some free time. -- Aude ( talk) 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
On August 7, 2008 User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) stowed the following warning into my user Talk Page:
“ | August 2008
|
” |
This is the first time that I’ve been accused of vandalism, ever. Such accusation is false and groundless. In addition, it is impolite and inconsiderate. Therefore, I ask for your patience, for I must defend myself from this grievous and unjust attack.
Yes, I did have a problem with an absurd little piece of text, as explained next:
ORIGINAL TEXT of 01:29, 5 August 2008:
“ | In 2002, the remains of the five unidentified victims were buried at Arlington National Cemetery, with a five-sided granite marker inscribed with the victims' names at the burial site.[76] | ” |
With all respect for the victims of 9/11, I suppose you will agree that it's a little difficult to "inscribe the names" of "unidentified victims".
Reasons for my deletion
In WP:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no_article , Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales is quoted writing:
“ |
Jimbo Wales agrees
Specifically with regard to BLP I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. - Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 ( Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information More generally I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. - Jimbo Wales, 19 July 2006 ( Insist on sources) |
” |
Thanks to my deletion (and this is a good example where 'to delete' may ultimately have a positive effect), said User talk:VegitaU obviously felt compelled to review and rewrite such phrase , which resulted in a better and augmented text, plus a refurbished, useful citation this time. So, now the article is a bit better –but I got a harsh reprimand nonetheless.
CURRENT CORRECTED TEXT of 14:38, 7 August 2008
“ | In 2002, the remains of twenty-five victims were buried collectively at Arlington National Cemetery, with a five-sided granite marker inscribed with the names of all the victims in the Pentagon.[76] | ” |
NEW TEXT ADDED 14:38, 7 August 2008
“ | The ceremony also honored the five victims whose remains were never found.[76] | ” |
Far from being vandalism, my edit had this clear and signed statement:
“ | (--> Remains: "names of the five unidentified victims"??? - good grief! - text deleted) | ” |
..so I guess your Siebot tool overdid it this time, and you fully believed it before making a more humane, more logical judgment.
ORIGINAL CITATION:
“ | 76. ^ Vogel, Steve (13 September 2002). "Lost and, Sometimes, Never Found; Pentagon Families Bury 25 of Their Dead Together and Mourn Five Not Identified", The Washington Post. | ” |
It's simple to check how the only verifiable data in that quote was its date.
CURRENT CITATION: adding a new link to "Lost and, Sometimes, Never Found"
“ | 76. ^ a b Vogel, Steve (13 September 2002). "Lost and, Sometimes, Never Found" , The Washington Post. Retrieved on 7 August 2008. | ” |
Notice the new and useful link.
In short, I deleted a brief portion of text that made no sense, along with an useless citation, for the reasons that it was illogical, absurd, and in doing so I fully complied with the Wikipedia founder’s deletion policy.
In return, I’ve been accused of vandalism, no less (that is, I’ve been insulted), and have also been threatened to be blocked ‘‘the next time I delete or blank page content’‘ (even if when so doing I’d be in full compliance of Mr. Wales’ guidelines).
However, to my great relief, I’ve noticed this warning in User:VegitaU ‘s Talk Page:
“ | ![]() You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. |
” |
The above block notice, probably put there by another Admin with more judgment and authority than User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) thinks he has, is a testimony toward the lack of maturity, or impulsiveness, of this Colombian youngster that has made American Airlines Flight 77 his own pet article.
Back to the beginning.
Other Admins, whenever they’ve made me a complaint (nobody’s perfect, I make my mistakes, so I don’t purport to be) have often had the courtesy of starting with a nice Thank you for your edits.
But User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) wrote, very menacingly:
“ | This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. | ” |
Well, if it’s the last, it also happens to be the first, so I haven’t much of a chance, have I?
But, just what "disruptive edits"are you talking about? That's just your own POV.
Youngster, you need to learn some manners, some courtesy, and to have some respect. It looks like your Air Force’s education was not enough.
Regards, -- AVM ( talk) 03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"The 189 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims,"
How can there be "one for each of the victims" if there were 189 victims but only 184 benches? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.88.84.123 (
talk) 03:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You are right about that, Jason1170, but that would mean that there is still a discrepancy with "The 189 victims of the attack...". It should say 184 victims imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A lot of people overlooked the fact that nearly 100% of America's airline pilots (and the world's) acknowledge they could never, ever, ever run their plane into the Pentagon, even if their life depended on it, or anything that is of a normal height, or the height of the Pentagon - even if they were at the minimum required speed to stay in the air. That's the best hardcore, undeniable, indisuptable fact that should be included, that 99% of our pilots do not believe an airplane hit the Pentagon, knowing they could never ever hit such a building in their wildest dreams, or, in reality on a flight simulator.
Then, being so low to the ground at the alleged speed... yeah, pilots have a few things to say about that as well. Then further, hitting the pentagon on the outer-side, instead of the inner-inside, or crashing through the roof. Even if you guys don't put this in the article, you guys should talk to a pilot about the pentagon crash, you'll hear the same answers every time. I do have a question for anyone who knows. Did this attack, attributed to terrorists, on the American military play a major role in getting the legal approval to send troops to war? Jason1170 ( talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory section is not an attempt at explaining the nature of the conspiracy theories, but an attempt to debunk them. This is clearly a wrathful overreaching on the part of people who are not letting themselves remain neutral. On top of that it's laden with weasel words like "minutiae". 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
On top of the fact that so many professional pilots admit they could not perform that manoeuvre, Hani Hanjour was described by his flight trainers as a terrible pilot who could not properly perform the most basic tasks. There are no photos of large pieces of debris, which a crash like that would certainly leave (as has been proved in all airline crashes, no matter how violent). The explanation that jet fuel melted most of the debris is fundamentally false, as it is scientifically impossible for jet fuel to burn at such a temperature to melt steel. The only images of the impact itself do not contain an aircraft. And yet the article states, against all scientific and logical reason, that Hani Hanjour hijacked Flight 77, a plane of which type he had never even attempted to fly (he was trained on regular flight training aircraft, I don't know which planes exactly but they are similar in size to an average Cessna), got past NORAD - the tightest air defence system in the world, performed a circular descent to near ground-level, a manoeuvre that his flight trainer stated he could not have performed, and crashed into a low building perfectly.
Looking at the evidence it's fair to say that this article deserves more than just a small "Conspiracy Theories" section. - 92.11.156.43 ( talk) 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks,. and iIt was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon.
(Pbreak)
The scheduled U.S. domestic flight from Washington Dulles International Airport, near Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic terrorists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.
The aircraft crashed into the western facadeside of the Pentagon at 09:37 a.m. Eastern TimeEDT..."
A few minor changes. The "and," is just weird. Paragraph break needed. "Domestic" and "Near...D.cC," seems redundant. Facade is the exterior. Technically true but "side" sums it up better since it broke through. Eastern Daylight Time (do we need a GMT conversion)? Any objections, tweaks, whatever? Cptnono ( talk) 09:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I too have a request to the edit- this fire did not take days to extinguish. This was under control within a few hours. The World Trade Center fires were the ones that took months to put out. Adkted2me ( talk) 04:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
User:VegitaU reverted my edits with the following note:
Yet, the fact that he is a "noted conspiracy theorist" is precisely why he *is* a reliable source when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, he is cited a full *9* times in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article, linked to in the Flight 77 conspiracy section.
Reverts by User:VegitaU and User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge are examples of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. 97.104.226.129 ( talk) 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we accept opinions? "Instead, Hanjour likely ended up in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda recruits were screened for special skills they may have." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.5.41.156 ( talk) 06:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Keep the conspiracy theories to the conspiracy theory article, please. Irbisgreif ( talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) WP is not run by polls, but by policies and guidelines. Here we have the issue of whether we are allowed (or required) to include a fringe theory per WP:UNDUE. UNDUE tells us to keep it if it is a "significant" minority, so that is the key. To decide whether it is significant or not, we rely on the best possible sources, i.e. mainstream publications like NYT and EB. If they mention the conspiracies where they address the events surrounding this flight (in their main article, not while focusing on fringe theories specifically), then it's "significant" and thus includable, and not otherwise. Crum375 ( talk) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone (preferably an administrator) please explain why the following references are not allowed by WP:UNDUE using quotes from the actual policy?
(outdent) Actual quotes:
The point is simple: you need to establish significance, and you need to follow the best quality "exceptional" sources, and you need to be sure not to give more notability to the fringes than the sources do. So if the source has an article titled: "AA 77" and includes the fringe view in it, it's significant for our own "AA 77". If it has an article called: "AA 77 fringe theories", it is acceptable for our own "AA 77 fringe theories". If we included the fringes under our own "AA 77", we'd be increasing its notability, by promoting it to the main article while our sources did not, which will violate "coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is" from above. Crum375 ( talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the type of this air disaster being described as Controlled Flight Into Terrain(along with Hijacking).
I thought it is usually being used to describe an airworthy aircraft being accidentally flown into terrains(such as mountains) as I had noticed from all articles on Wikipedia about air accident/incident I've read before. Further more, the Wikipedia article about Controlled Flight Into Terrain(CFIT) also described it as "an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, inadvertently flies into terrain" while in this case the plane is neither under pilot control(well,not the one should be^^) nor inadvertently flown into the Pentagon.
I think it should be deliberate crash or simply hijacking, but I am not sure as I'm still a newbie. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong please :) Blodance ( talk) 09:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I thought the "accident type" in articles about air disaster generally describes "What happened to the aircraft involved?", so deliberate crash goes fine with me. Well, if there's real need to state that this plane was used in a targeted attack, then I think simply adding "suicide attack" would do, but for one phrase... sorry but the only phrase that came up in my head was "B-757 cruise missile"...:P Blodance ( talk) 11:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The image that was uploaded has an animated plane inserted in the first frame (just prior to impact). This is an assumption as to the location, and was never seen on the original footage. This animation should be removed from the image as it is presumptiuous as to the location of the plane, and slightly controversial as there are some that believe this was not an airliner that struck the building. In any event, the original clean images should be used. Adkted2me ( talk) 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
From the 9/11 Commission Report, it sounds like the pilots were relocated to the rear of the plane instead of being killed in the cockpit. No stabbing, bomb threats or anything to suggest that. And Barbara asked her husband what should she tell the captain, suggesting that the captain of the plane was in the back. Lucas Duke ( talk) 14:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG will be appearing as picture of the day on September 11, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 22:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It says in the Security camera video section that: "Department of Defense released filmed footage that was recorded by a security camera of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, with a plane visible in one frame, as a "thin white blur"" I have looked at the videos and they don't show a plane. In one frame right before the explosion there is a small object to the right that in no way can be confirmed as a plane, and in the frame after that is the explosion. Nowhere is there a plane visible. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.147.157 ( talk) 10:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of a Genuine and Independent Inquiry into the 9-11 Crime in general, a group or concerned citizens has devoted a great deal of time and effort to conducting a very comprehensive inquiry into the flight of a plane over Arlington, a flight generally coinciding with an explosive event that failed almost completely in its apparently-intentional demolition of part of the Pentagon. That partial demolition did occur, but not till about 35 minutes after the explosion and appearance of a fireball and subsequent plume of smoke.
This citizens' serious inquiry would totally dispute the entire Wikipedia section entitled American Airlines Flight 77 and gives the most serious reasons why this section needs to be totally rewritten if credibility is expected and truth even remotely upheld. I can do no better than quote the inquiry authors' own introduction, and close with the most passionate plea that those responsible (all of us) refuse to bow to political expediency and officialdom-driven populist opinion.
Honesty, objectivity and Truth absolutely demand this section be reconsidered in toto.
I quote:
To whom it concerns, i.e., everyone:
In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.
Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.
If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.
Please understand that this information is not being brought to your attention simply for educational purposes. It is presented within the context of a “call to action” accompanied by a detailed step-by-step strategy intended to inspire and empower you to do something about it. But first, please familiarize yourself with the evidence by viewing and paying close attention to the 81-minute video presentation, National Security Alert [2]
Thank you for your concern and thank you for your action.
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis
Citizen Investigation Team [3]
Hommedespoir ( talk) 03:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)hommedespoir 7 May 2011
Why is it still being widely held as fact that Hani Hanjour piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, if it was indeed AA Flight 77? Hanjour could barely pilot a single engine Cessna barely a month earlier, yet we're supposed to believe he could execute a 330-degree turn with military precision and nose down in a Boeing 757 and crash into one of the most guarded structures in the United States. Just doesn't make sense..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.45.225 ( talk) 21:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
In the beginning of the article, phonecalls from passagers in the plane is mentioned. Could someone add a "source needed"-template for that? Thank you. 193.235.138.40 ( talk) 10:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I searched the wayback machine and found the 2 videos which are no longer hosted on the site referenced. Can someone replace the rotten link? Video 2 is the one that was embedded. (I'm not sure how to do this and I don't want to run through an unnecessary number of page edits trying to get it right...). Video 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20090212100904/http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-1.mpg Video 2: http://web.archive.org/web/20090212100831/http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-2.mpg Ahp378 ( talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I heard someone mention once that this plane was originally supposed to hit the white house. When they couldn't find it, they decided to go after the pentagon instead. I do not know if this is true or not and have no way of backing up this claim. Does anyone if it is true?
216.138.51.95 ( talk) 18:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
etc. Why isn't there a section for this? It appears from the discussion above that there once was. Basket Feudalist 15:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I am well aware of the policies you cite. Unfortunately they only apply in so far as (for example) they would to the article on the eastern front not mentioning Katyn!!! Basket Feudalist 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This section appears to be contradictory. Compare:
the black boxes aboard their destroyed aircraft were modern solid-state versions, which are more resistant to damage than the older magnetic tape recorders.
With:
In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape.
Which statement is correct? BTW. 'CVR' needs to be explained / linked- there are no other ref's to it in this article so it is WP:TECHNICAL. Basket Feudalist 15:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
According to 'p85 of Destination disaster by Andrew Brookes ( ISBN 0 7110 2862 1), a military helicopter on the helipad at the Pentagon was destroyed by the crashing aircraft. Unfortunately no serial number is given. Is there anyone who can add this info to the article? Mjroots ( talk) 19:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The real number of fatalities is uncertain. It was suggested to be 95 (65 AA passengers and 30 on ground) based on page 7 of "Mass Fatality Management for Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction" (PDF). U.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Command and the Office for Domestic Preparedness. August 2005. http://www.edgewood.army.mil/hld/dl/MFM_Capstone_August_2005.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-06-24." Other sources (citation needed) suggest different numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.176.90 ( talk) 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source for this claim?
Some people have voiced doubts about whether a plane really crashed into the Pentagon. Video footage from a nearby Sheraton hotel was confiscated by the FBI. An amateur recording taken just after the impact does not give the impression that a plane had just hit the building.
If not, it should probably be taken out. -- GD 23:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
Nitpicking time :D "Some people have voiced doubts about claims that the Pentagon was not hit ..." I'd put it "Some people have voiced doubts about claims that the Pentagon was hit ..." -andy 80.129.100.99 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC) The "not" is illogical. People claimed that the Pentagon *WAS* hit, and those other people DOUBTED it. ;)
It is very true that many educated people throughout the world (I wish someone made a survey!) have simply not found an explanation that clearly correlates the photographic evidence of the crash site and the official Flight 77 story. There may be an explanation, but the published photographs do not show clear evidence of the remnants of a large aircraft, and it is very logical that doubts have been raised. I don't care about conspiracies, I don't question any other story about 9-11, I make every effort to remain objective in anything I discuss. Shutting down and disregarding those who present these doubts is not fair. I have respectfully expressed in Wikipedia the fact that the same questions about Flight 77 have been raised independently throughout the world, but my contribution gets deleted within minutes no matter when I do it. WHY? I am not denying the official story of Flight 77, I am only saying that it is constantly debated by many. And that is true.
I know people are going to hate me for saying this, but I really think there should be a small section about the fact that there are so many conspiracy theories. I dispute nothing, it's just I think it's best to talk about it, rather than vaguely allude to it. For instance, the "witnesses" section clearly gives an indication that some feel the need to prove it happened. Somebody mentioned the moon landing conspiracies. Well, there is a section about them in the Moon_landing article, as stupid as they are. I guess some feel that precisely because too many people believe that no plane crashed into the Pentagon, it shouldn't be mentioned. My point of view is, the more people believe it, the more we should talk about it, otherwise the lack of comment just fuels the flame. Maybe I'll add a proposition here in the talk page later today. Ratfox 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is a proposition. I am open to suggestions and critics, you can make your own version if you want. I mainly ripped off other wikipedia articles. I just think there should be a section about it, that is all. Ratfox 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Due to the important political consequences of the 9/11 attacks, a number of conspiracy theories challenging the mainstream account have emerged. These propositions range from claims that the government of the United States had foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately let them happen, to allegations that the whole event was staged.
In particular, one of the most well-known theories contends that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, but by a smaller object (typically a missile or smaller aircraft). Various physical models are proponed claiming the damage to be insufficient for such an impact, and the witnesses are accused of having been paid off. The suspicions are fueled by the lack of clear video footage of the impact.
Due to the high visibility of the event, this theory is controversial amongst conspiracy theorists themselves, many of them now believing it was indeed flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. Some of them go as far as suggesting that the crash happened, but was engineered to make it appear that it did not, the purported goal being to divide, distract and discredit their community.
Okay. After waiting one week, I have now added my proposition to the page. I further suggest that no details of the theories should be given here, using instead the page dedicated to all 9/11 conspiracy theories, or eventually creating one just for this event.
I repeat, I think the hoax accusations are widespread enough to justify a small section. Even the moon landing page has such a section. Ratfox 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Due to the important political consequences of the 9/11 attacks, a number of conspiracy theories challenging the mainstream account have emerged. These propositions range from claims that the government of the United States had foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately let them happen, to allegations that the whole event was staged.
In particular, one of the most well-known theories, started by Thierry Meyssan in a book [1], contends that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, but by a smaller object (typically a missile or smaller aircraft). Though the book and its claims have drawn wide criticism from many sides, the theory is still popular with some conspiracy theorists.
Sigh. Tsk Tsk Tsk. I know I may sound like a typical conspiracy theorist, but the evidence is all there. You just simply have to look for it.
By the way, it's quite obvious that a small blip like that of a plane is not a Boeing 757. Sheared lamp posts in the area also suggest a path that the plane might have taken. Judge for yourself. 71.131.182.235 ( talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that I don't agree with the French guy's idea of the US launching a missile against the Pentagon. His "theory" got coverage in major media as the first conspiracy associated with the Pentagon though, and some people in France buy it. It really should be mentioned in the article. Anynobody 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If it was only the people in France! I feel ambivalent about giving this guy more coverage than he should get, but I guess he's the guy who brought the whole thing to mainstream attention... Ratfox 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The ability of a B757 do travel at 530 mph at an altitude of 10 ft should be proven before it is included in the page.Also how it was immune to the aileron reversal phenomenon at this speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.70.236 ( talk) 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
we lack the flight manifest which would put those hijackers aboard, couldn’t find one, if you stumble upon it, remove the tag. Quantumentanglement ( talk) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Captions should be written in a manner that they can act as a substitute for the image for people who cannot view them, or for the vision impaired, or others who are using screen readers to 'view' the photo. I changed the caption to Officially-released DOD footage from the Pentagon shows a "thin white blur" followed by an explosion as more descriptive of what the video shows than flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. Someone viewing the film will not see flight 77, but will see "thin white blur" (cited quote) followed by an explosion. 67.49.8.228 ( talk) 07:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit dismayed at the FAC process, that this article passed with outstanding issues. I don't think it is FA quality just yet. Not sure whether to bother with my time, but here are outstanding issues:
I have limited free time right now and periods of time with no internet access, while I am on wikibreak to work on this, but could help out when I do get some free time. -- Aude ( talk) 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
On August 7, 2008 User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) stowed the following warning into my user Talk Page:
“ | August 2008
|
” |
This is the first time that I’ve been accused of vandalism, ever. Such accusation is false and groundless. In addition, it is impolite and inconsiderate. Therefore, I ask for your patience, for I must defend myself from this grievous and unjust attack.
Yes, I did have a problem with an absurd little piece of text, as explained next:
ORIGINAL TEXT of 01:29, 5 August 2008:
“ | In 2002, the remains of the five unidentified victims were buried at Arlington National Cemetery, with a five-sided granite marker inscribed with the victims' names at the burial site.[76] | ” |
With all respect for the victims of 9/11, I suppose you will agree that it's a little difficult to "inscribe the names" of "unidentified victims".
Reasons for my deletion
In WP:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no_article , Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales is quoted writing:
“ |
Jimbo Wales agrees
Specifically with regard to BLP I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. - Jimbo Wales, 16 May 2006 ( Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information More generally I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar. - Jimbo Wales, 19 July 2006 ( Insist on sources) |
” |
Thanks to my deletion (and this is a good example where 'to delete' may ultimately have a positive effect), said User talk:VegitaU obviously felt compelled to review and rewrite such phrase , which resulted in a better and augmented text, plus a refurbished, useful citation this time. So, now the article is a bit better –but I got a harsh reprimand nonetheless.
CURRENT CORRECTED TEXT of 14:38, 7 August 2008
“ | In 2002, the remains of twenty-five victims were buried collectively at Arlington National Cemetery, with a five-sided granite marker inscribed with the names of all the victims in the Pentagon.[76] | ” |
NEW TEXT ADDED 14:38, 7 August 2008
“ | The ceremony also honored the five victims whose remains were never found.[76] | ” |
Far from being vandalism, my edit had this clear and signed statement:
“ | (--> Remains: "names of the five unidentified victims"??? - good grief! - text deleted) | ” |
..so I guess your Siebot tool overdid it this time, and you fully believed it before making a more humane, more logical judgment.
ORIGINAL CITATION:
“ | 76. ^ Vogel, Steve (13 September 2002). "Lost and, Sometimes, Never Found; Pentagon Families Bury 25 of Their Dead Together and Mourn Five Not Identified", The Washington Post. | ” |
It's simple to check how the only verifiable data in that quote was its date.
CURRENT CITATION: adding a new link to "Lost and, Sometimes, Never Found"
“ | 76. ^ a b Vogel, Steve (13 September 2002). "Lost and, Sometimes, Never Found" , The Washington Post. Retrieved on 7 August 2008. | ” |
Notice the new and useful link.
In short, I deleted a brief portion of text that made no sense, along with an useless citation, for the reasons that it was illogical, absurd, and in doing so I fully complied with the Wikipedia founder’s deletion policy.
In return, I’ve been accused of vandalism, no less (that is, I’ve been insulted), and have also been threatened to be blocked ‘‘the next time I delete or blank page content’‘ (even if when so doing I’d be in full compliance of Mr. Wales’ guidelines).
However, to my great relief, I’ve noticed this warning in User:VegitaU ‘s Talk Page:
“ | ![]() You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. |
” |
The above block notice, probably put there by another Admin with more judgment and authority than User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) thinks he has, is a testimony toward the lack of maturity, or impulsiveness, of this Colombian youngster that has made American Airlines Flight 77 his own pet article.
Back to the beginning.
Other Admins, whenever they’ve made me a complaint (nobody’s perfect, I make my mistakes, so I don’t purport to be) have often had the courtesy of starting with a nice Thank you for your edits.
But User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) wrote, very menacingly:
“ | This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. | ” |
Well, if it’s the last, it also happens to be the first, so I haven’t much of a chance, have I?
But, just what "disruptive edits"are you talking about? That's just your own POV.
Youngster, you need to learn some manners, some courtesy, and to have some respect. It looks like your Air Force’s education was not enough.
Regards, -- AVM ( talk) 03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
"The 189 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims,"
How can there be "one for each of the victims" if there were 189 victims but only 184 benches? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.88.84.123 (
talk) 03:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
You are right about that, Jason1170, but that would mean that there is still a discrepancy with "The 189 victims of the attack...". It should say 184 victims imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
A lot of people overlooked the fact that nearly 100% of America's airline pilots (and the world's) acknowledge they could never, ever, ever run their plane into the Pentagon, even if their life depended on it, or anything that is of a normal height, or the height of the Pentagon - even if they were at the minimum required speed to stay in the air. That's the best hardcore, undeniable, indisuptable fact that should be included, that 99% of our pilots do not believe an airplane hit the Pentagon, knowing they could never ever hit such a building in their wildest dreams, or, in reality on a flight simulator.
Then, being so low to the ground at the alleged speed... yeah, pilots have a few things to say about that as well. Then further, hitting the pentagon on the outer-side, instead of the inner-inside, or crashing through the roof. Even if you guys don't put this in the article, you guys should talk to a pilot about the pentagon crash, you'll hear the same answers every time. I do have a question for anyone who knows. Did this attack, attributed to terrorists, on the American military play a major role in getting the legal approval to send troops to war? Jason1170 ( talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The conspiracy theory section is not an attempt at explaining the nature of the conspiracy theories, but an attempt to debunk them. This is clearly a wrathful overreaching on the part of people who are not letting themselves remain neutral. On top of that it's laden with weasel words like "minutiae". 24.174.82.195 ( talk) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
On top of the fact that so many professional pilots admit they could not perform that manoeuvre, Hani Hanjour was described by his flight trainers as a terrible pilot who could not properly perform the most basic tasks. There are no photos of large pieces of debris, which a crash like that would certainly leave (as has been proved in all airline crashes, no matter how violent). The explanation that jet fuel melted most of the debris is fundamentally false, as it is scientifically impossible for jet fuel to burn at such a temperature to melt steel. The only images of the impact itself do not contain an aircraft. And yet the article states, against all scientific and logical reason, that Hani Hanjour hijacked Flight 77, a plane of which type he had never even attempted to fly (he was trained on regular flight training aircraft, I don't know which planes exactly but they are similar in size to an average Cessna), got past NORAD - the tightest air defence system in the world, performed a circular descent to near ground-level, a manoeuvre that his flight trainer stated he could not have performed, and crashed into a low building perfectly.
Looking at the evidence it's fair to say that this article deserves more than just a small "Conspiracy Theories" section. - 92.11.156.43 ( talk) 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
"American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks,. and iIt was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon.
(Pbreak)
The scheduled U.S. domestic flight from Washington Dulles International Airport, near Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic terrorists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.
The aircraft crashed into the western facadeside of the Pentagon at 09:37 a.m. Eastern TimeEDT..."
A few minor changes. The "and," is just weird. Paragraph break needed. "Domestic" and "Near...D.cC," seems redundant. Facade is the exterior. Technically true but "side" sums it up better since it broke through. Eastern Daylight Time (do we need a GMT conversion)? Any objections, tweaks, whatever? Cptnono ( talk) 09:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I too have a request to the edit- this fire did not take days to extinguish. This was under control within a few hours. The World Trade Center fires were the ones that took months to put out. Adkted2me ( talk) 04:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
User:VegitaU reverted my edits with the following note:
Yet, the fact that he is a "noted conspiracy theorist" is precisely why he *is* a reliable source when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, he is cited a full *9* times in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article, linked to in the Flight 77 conspiracy section.
Reverts by User:VegitaU and User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge are examples of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. 97.104.226.129 ( talk) 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Do we accept opinions? "Instead, Hanjour likely ended up in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda recruits were screened for special skills they may have." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.5.41.156 ( talk) 06:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I would like to point out WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Keep the conspiracy theories to the conspiracy theory article, please. Irbisgreif ( talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) WP is not run by polls, but by policies and guidelines. Here we have the issue of whether we are allowed (or required) to include a fringe theory per WP:UNDUE. UNDUE tells us to keep it if it is a "significant" minority, so that is the key. To decide whether it is significant or not, we rely on the best possible sources, i.e. mainstream publications like NYT and EB. If they mention the conspiracies where they address the events surrounding this flight (in their main article, not while focusing on fringe theories specifically), then it's "significant" and thus includable, and not otherwise. Crum375 ( talk) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Can someone (preferably an administrator) please explain why the following references are not allowed by WP:UNDUE using quotes from the actual policy?
(outdent) Actual quotes:
The point is simple: you need to establish significance, and you need to follow the best quality "exceptional" sources, and you need to be sure not to give more notability to the fringes than the sources do. So if the source has an article titled: "AA 77" and includes the fringe view in it, it's significant for our own "AA 77". If it has an article called: "AA 77 fringe theories", it is acceptable for our own "AA 77 fringe theories". If we included the fringes under our own "AA 77", we'd be increasing its notability, by promoting it to the main article while our sources did not, which will violate "coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is" from above. Crum375 ( talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the type of this air disaster being described as Controlled Flight Into Terrain(along with Hijacking).
I thought it is usually being used to describe an airworthy aircraft being accidentally flown into terrains(such as mountains) as I had noticed from all articles on Wikipedia about air accident/incident I've read before. Further more, the Wikipedia article about Controlled Flight Into Terrain(CFIT) also described it as "an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, inadvertently flies into terrain" while in this case the plane is neither under pilot control(well,not the one should be^^) nor inadvertently flown into the Pentagon.
I think it should be deliberate crash or simply hijacking, but I am not sure as I'm still a newbie. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong please :) Blodance ( talk) 09:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, I thought the "accident type" in articles about air disaster generally describes "What happened to the aircraft involved?", so deliberate crash goes fine with me. Well, if there's real need to state that this plane was used in a targeted attack, then I think simply adding "suicide attack" would do, but for one phrase... sorry but the only phrase that came up in my head was "B-757 cruise missile"...:P Blodance ( talk) 11:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The image that was uploaded has an animated plane inserted in the first frame (just prior to impact). This is an assumption as to the location, and was never seen on the original footage. This animation should be removed from the image as it is presumptiuous as to the location of the plane, and slightly controversial as there are some that believe this was not an airliner that struck the building. In any event, the original clean images should be used. Adkted2me ( talk) 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
From the 9/11 Commission Report, it sounds like the pilots were relocated to the rear of the plane instead of being killed in the cockpit. No stabbing, bomb threats or anything to suggest that. And Barbara asked her husband what should she tell the captain, suggesting that the captain of the plane was in the back. Lucas Duke ( talk) 14:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG will be appearing as picture of the day on September 11, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng { chat} 22:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
It says in the Security camera video section that: "Department of Defense released filmed footage that was recorded by a security camera of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, with a plane visible in one frame, as a "thin white blur"" I have looked at the videos and they don't show a plane. In one frame right before the explosion there is a small object to the right that in no way can be confirmed as a plane, and in the frame after that is the explosion. Nowhere is there a plane visible. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.147.157 ( talk) 10:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of a Genuine and Independent Inquiry into the 9-11 Crime in general, a group or concerned citizens has devoted a great deal of time and effort to conducting a very comprehensive inquiry into the flight of a plane over Arlington, a flight generally coinciding with an explosive event that failed almost completely in its apparently-intentional demolition of part of the Pentagon. That partial demolition did occur, but not till about 35 minutes after the explosion and appearance of a fireball and subsequent plume of smoke.
This citizens' serious inquiry would totally dispute the entire Wikipedia section entitled American Airlines Flight 77 and gives the most serious reasons why this section needs to be totally rewritten if credibility is expected and truth even remotely upheld. I can do no better than quote the inquiry authors' own introduction, and close with the most passionate plea that those responsible (all of us) refuse to bow to political expediency and officialdom-driven populist opinion.
Honesty, objectivity and Truth absolutely demand this section be reconsidered in toto.
I quote:
To whom it concerns, i.e., everyone:
In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.
Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.
If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.
Please understand that this information is not being brought to your attention simply for educational purposes. It is presented within the context of a “call to action” accompanied by a detailed step-by-step strategy intended to inspire and empower you to do something about it. But first, please familiarize yourself with the evidence by viewing and paying close attention to the 81-minute video presentation, National Security Alert [2]
Thank you for your concern and thank you for your action.
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis
Citizen Investigation Team [3]
Hommedespoir ( talk) 03:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)hommedespoir 7 May 2011
Why is it still being widely held as fact that Hani Hanjour piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, if it was indeed AA Flight 77? Hanjour could barely pilot a single engine Cessna barely a month earlier, yet we're supposed to believe he could execute a 330-degree turn with military precision and nose down in a Boeing 757 and crash into one of the most guarded structures in the United States. Just doesn't make sense..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.45.225 ( talk) 21:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
In the beginning of the article, phonecalls from passagers in the plane is mentioned. Could someone add a "source needed"-template for that? Thank you. 193.235.138.40 ( talk) 10:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I searched the wayback machine and found the 2 videos which are no longer hosted on the site referenced. Can someone replace the rotten link? Video 2 is the one that was embedded. (I'm not sure how to do this and I don't want to run through an unnecessary number of page edits trying to get it right...). Video 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20090212100904/http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-1.mpg Video 2: http://web.archive.org/web/20090212100831/http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-2.mpg Ahp378 ( talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I heard someone mention once that this plane was originally supposed to hit the white house. When they couldn't find it, they decided to go after the pentagon instead. I do not know if this is true or not and have no way of backing up this claim. Does anyone if it is true?
216.138.51.95 ( talk) 18:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
etc. Why isn't there a section for this? It appears from the discussion above that there once was. Basket Feudalist 15:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I am well aware of the policies you cite. Unfortunately they only apply in so far as (for example) they would to the article on the eastern front not mentioning Katyn!!! Basket Feudalist 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
This section appears to be contradictory. Compare:
the black boxes aboard their destroyed aircraft were modern solid-state versions, which are more resistant to damage than the older magnetic tape recorders.
With:
In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape.
Which statement is correct? BTW. 'CVR' needs to be explained / linked- there are no other ref's to it in this article so it is WP:TECHNICAL. Basket Feudalist 15:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
According to 'p85 of Destination disaster by Andrew Brookes ( ISBN 0 7110 2862 1), a military helicopter on the helipad at the Pentagon was destroyed by the crashing aircraft. Unfortunately no serial number is given. Is there anyone who can add this info to the article? Mjroots ( talk) 19:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)