Talk:American Airlines Flight 11/Archive 1

Trivia

The flight is briefly mentioned in the opening scene of the film Two Girls and a Guy which was filmed in 1997. The character of Lou (played by Natasha Gregson Wagner) met her unfaithful boyfriend (played by actor Robert Downey Jr.) aboard this flight.

Unverifed and Trivial. KyuuA4 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Third video?

I'm sure we all know about Pavel Hlava's video and Jules Naudet's video of American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower:

"Jules Naudet, a French cameraman, and Pavel Hlava, a Czech immigrant, both filmed the crash of the plane into the building."

But a caption mentions that there was a third video?!

"A frame from Pavel Hlava's video, one of only three known videos that shows Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower of the World Trade Center."

Is this an error or is there really a third video?

B4nny 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jules Naudet, a French cameraman, and Pavel Hlava, a Czech immigrant, both filmed the crash of the plane into the building.[10] A web cam set up by Wolfgang Staehle at an art exhibit in Brooklyn to take images of Lower Manhattan every four seconds, also captured images of American Airlines Flight 11 crashing in to the North Tower.[11]"

The third video is listed in the article 156.75.192.113 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)UserBlah

- My reply UserBlah Wikipedia is a highly controlled medium, notice that they dont show the video footage of Flight 11 crashing into the buildings or even a still. Work out for yourself. Compare the midsections & the tail markings. Do it now, it will take 1 minute. - Dimensio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.241.208 (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Terrorist Images

It is not important to have the images of the terrorists in this page. Doing so glorifies them - instead of demonizing them. Furthermore, they have their own Wiki pages where their images are included there. KyuuA4 19:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, look at American Flight 77 and United Flight 93. Neither included hijacker photos before I removed the ones from Flight 11 and Flight 175. KyuuA4 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Narrative Voice

In the section titled "The Flight," the voice starts out using past tense. However, it shifts to present progressive (or something like this) during later sections (e.g. when the fighter pilots are scrambled). I don't have a good English background, so I was wondering if this was correct or should be changed. Tpoore1 02:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be changed to all past tense. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Plane Image

"AA11 on the morning on 9/11". Was it THE actual plane that went into Tower 1? Or is it a plane that flies the same flight path as Flight 11 but under a different flight number? KyuuA4 05:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

Is it necessary to have a Timeline section in this article? Information provided by the timeline section is already covered by the September 11 Timeline. Any "new" information included in Flight 11's timeline should be brought over to the September 11 Timeline. KyuuA4 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The information in the timeline should be merged into the prose, or else removed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Waleed al-Shehri Is Dead

Can we please modify or delete the "inconsistencies" when the BBC erroneously reported that Waleed al-Shehri was alive, when they were interviewing someone different and has since been confirmed he is dead? This seems to be put in there by someone who hasn't been updated as to this news, or someone who chooses to ignore news. RegBarc 08:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to pick one way or the other, I agree. But as far as I can find BBC hasn't retracted its story. It's still online, for example here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm and I google isn't giving me any retractions or corrections on it from BBC (if you have one, that will settle the whole question). Waleed's article claims the BBC was duped and cites a Spiegel report saying BBC had the wrong Waleed, but if BBC doesn't confirm that mistake we're down to one media outlet vs. another. Flip a coin?

If there's a retraction of this we should pull the "inconsistencies" line involving him and my edit to his mention at the beginning of the article. Whatever the case, it would be nice if all parts of AA 11 and Waleed Al-Shehri would all say roughly the same thing about whether or not he's alive or dead. (I have no particular opinion or knowledge of which one it is; I made the edit to the top just to keep consistency within the article.) dmesg 10:33 1 May 2006 (EDT)

Flight renumbered

what does this mean "Flight 11 has since been renumbered Flight 25"?

It means that the American Airlines' morning flight from Boston to Los Angeles which used to be called "Flight 11" is now called "Flight 25". -- Someone else

Thanks!

I would have thought that this was obvious, but never mind....

Dimensio: your reply provides no new information and is discouraging to the user. I consider it bad manners —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.241.208 (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to people who don't fly much and aren't familiar with how flights are numbered. --Brion 01:17 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Arno, "The regular American Airlines Boston to Los Angeles weekday morning flight" does not "[repeat] what the first paragraph said". The first paragraph refers to a particular airplane. The article is about a particular event in which one particular airplane took off, flew, and crashed. "This flight has since been renumbered" therefore appears to refer to that particular event -- as if we should all now say "American Airlines flight 25 was hijacked on September 11, 2001". --Brion 01:49 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Do you really think that anyone is going to interpret it in that fashion aside from that one guy who did not apparently read the article properly? The renumbering occurred after and because of the Sep 11 attack.

I sure didn't know what to make of it. I'm not an idiot (I like to think so, anyway, otherwise I'd have completely destroyed the server by now with my maintenance on the software) but I don't fly much and am not familiar with airline flight numbering systems, and would not know what "the flight was renumbered" refers to. It would surprise me very much if there are only two people who find the previous wording confusing; the clearer wording harms nothing. --Brion 01:57 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

I find the previous wording confusing too. As a non-flyer, I thought that each individual flight (as opposed to each service) had its own flight number, so the correct interpretation of this would never have occured to me. The version Brion restored might not be the best way round the problem, but it's better than what was there before. --Camembert

i agree with you both and that is why i made the original change - Arno shouldn't complain - i was merely trying to make it clearer for Wikipedia readers

-- Paul Melville Austin

OK, I lost my last two replies because Camembert and then Austin was here at the same time. I could not locate a date the flight number was changed - it was before Dec 2001 (there's nothing in American Airlines' press releases after that date, and no press releases available before December 2001) , and most probably Oct 2001 (as that was when flight 93 was renumbered - albeit by United Airlines).

But I have added a single word to this most controversial paragraph. It should now flow on from the very first paragraph. Incidentally, the copied bit came from the second paragraph.

Honestly, "flight route designation" isn't any clearer to me than "flight number", particularly when only one term shows up without the other. What's wrong with "The regular Boston-Los Angeles morning flight was later renumbered...", which is clear and unambiguous? (Of course there's also the question of motive -- call me cynical, but "out of respect for those who died" sounds less likely than "to avoid creeping out customers, who might switch to another airline or stop flying altogether".) --Brion

Hmmm. I'm a little lost. You say "Flight" makes more sense to you than "Flight number" or "Flight route designation"? But you didn't like the term 'flight' in the first place. Also, is flight 11-cum-25 a morning flight only? I'm not so sure on that one.

As for your cynicism - I don't say no to financial/business concerns being a secondary motive to the renumbering. I suspect that Flight 11 (and for that matter, Flights 175 and 77) now has the same ring about it as the name 'Titanic' - there never has been another ship by that name since the famous one that sunk in 1912. But I do believe that respect also figures in there somewhere.

--Arno

According to a source inside American Airlines:

"Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001 until their flight numbers changed, neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled flights on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/) do not list either flight that day. So to claim that they were hijacked is suspicious at best since they didn't exist that day."

So what about this? Shouldn't this be mentioned here? --Ingeborgsjon 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jet fuel theory

Someone else said: "I still think the jet fuel theory has been dismissed, anyone KNOW?"

As far as I know the jet fuel theory still is the most widely accepted one. That is if by "jet fuel theory" you mean that the burning jet fuel is what caused the structural collapse. From what I have read in newspapers and seen in documentarys on the Discovery and History Channels: The force of the impact destroyed the fire retardant form and the burning fuel melted the metal supports that held the floors to the load-bearing beams that formed the outer and inner walls. They eventual failed and this caused an unstoppable pancaking chain reaction as one floor hit the one below and those two floors hit a third below them and those three ..... The fire also melted the structural supports themselves and when the floors (read: horizontal bracing) started to pull away from the load-bearing walls and pancake there was nothing to keep the outer load-bearing walls from bending inward. They then quickly snapped (gross exaggeration: H -> ><). --mav

Yes, that's it, the initial reports were, I think, distorted in making the fire much hotter and much longer-lasting than non-aviation-fuel fires, neither of which was true. It's the initial reporting that was discarded: the fire remains the cause of the collapse, not because it was so hot or so enduring but because the unevenness of the heating of the steel led to structural collapse. The rôle of the jet-fuel tends to be overemphasized: it's the fire left after the jet-fuel had been consumed that made the building collapse by reducing the structural integrity of the bracing. So the article wasn't wrong per se, I was just reacting to the over-emphasis in the initial reporting on the jet-fuel. I think there may have been a reoport after thae analysis of the microscopic structure of the recovered steel that talks about this, but I can't find it on the net. -- Someone else

Just so you are aware, even NIST, the agency selected by Congress to investigate the WTC building collapses, ended up rejecting the pancaking floor theory. The NIST web site states it here, at item number 8: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm . "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers..." 66.41.179.140 (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My understandig is that the trusses - ie the floor supports of the towers - were simply not built to withstand the sort of temperatures that was produced by the burning fuel from a 767 aircraft. Arno

According to a report I remember hearing (I think in 2005), but cannot specifically reference, the paper ignited by the jet fuel was the bigger factor in the collapse. Paper and wood fires are nasty things, and according to this same report, the fire was much hotter because of the paper than the jet fuel. It sounds counter-intuitive, but that's what I remember. -- BlueNight

The problem here is that even the offcial report from NIST shows that they couldn't reproduce the required temperature to weaken the steel. --Ingeborgsjon 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jet fuel burns at 410 degrees Fahrenheit, paper at 451. Structural steel looses a large fraction of its load bearing capacity at just 300 degrees. Rwflammang (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The jet fuel theory is still the officail version. Both towers are lumped under the same cause - seems unlikely but there it is. Building #7, however, wasn't hit so the foam falling off totally and/or symmetrically, if there was any foam, ( doesn't really matter ) and jet fuel ( way too low in temperature and BTUs to melt steel - so what!) - doesn't apply. Anyway #7 dropped like a brick - suddenly and vertically - no fuel, no structural damage, ah what the hell.

Exactly.

"No structural damage?!" What the hell? Go to 911myths.com and look for pics of WTC7 on 9/11-a huge section of the building's south side had been scooped out by the North Tower's collapse (WTC7 is less than 1000 ft from the North Tower). There's also several pics of blazing fires in WTC7 on that site. Also, the building's collapse wasn't sudden-it had been predicted by the FDNY at least an hour before, and eventually lead to the FDNY pulling all firefighters from the area when they realized its collapse was imminent (hence Silverstein's telling of the decision to "pull it"). Finally, if you've seen videos of controlled demolition, you would realize that the collapse of WTC7 is incosistent with controlled demolitions.

It's not. It's very consistent with controlled demolition. --Ingeborgsjon 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope nobody's promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. Wikipidea should be neutral, which means it should also be as factual as possible. Specualtive conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact should not be given equal treatment to theories that are actually logical and grounded in fact. They should be mentioned if notable enough, but not advanced if the facts don't support them.

Even the official theory is by definition a conspiracy theory so think you should reconsider your statement. Anyway Jetfuel burns quick and a relative low temperature in relation to a fire fueled by paper, wood, etc. And there are hard evidence that the fires in WTC didn't reach any high temperatures. --Ingeborgsjon 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that steel looses strength long before it melts, you don't have to have high enough temperature to melt steel to cause a collapse

Also keep in mind that steel acts as a heat pipe according to the laws of thermodynamics. Heating up steel until it weakens is very hard and could not be achieved by those briefly burning fires. --Ingeborgsjon 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The fires burned for over half an hour before the buildings collapsed. Industrial fires routinely cause the collapse of the steel buildings commonly used in industry. Steel is a lousy building material if you want to build a fire resistant building, ask any architect. Rwflammang (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I have seen a number of experienced architects and structural engineers that have publicly stated on camera that no steel-framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire alone until WTC 7 did, even when they burned much longer. Is this information incorrect? 66.41.179.140 (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Steel loses around 50 percent of its original strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has reported that pockets of fire reached 1,832 degrees Fahrenheit. That's because jet fuel was only the source of ignition, and most of it burned off after ten minutes. Office furniture, carpeting, curtains, paper - combustible materials like these were the things that intensified the heat of the fire... heat that was sufficient to weaken the steel to ten percent of its original strength. A senior engineer at the American Institute of Steel Construction has supported this, and that's good enough for me. But then, maybe he doesn't know about the heat pipe effect, eh? heh 71.204.49.76 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Article name

To the person who moved this page: See the top of this talk page. AA Flight 11 has been renamed AA Flight 25 so there is no reason to have a more complicated title than American Airlines flight 11. BTW, even if AA did not do this then this title should still be used even though, possibly some day, there might be another famous AA flight 11. We would worry about disambiguation then. --mav 05:14 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

The renaming of the article was not related to the renumbering of the flight, please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision). - Patrick 11:42 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Plus from what I notice, the names of some "doomed flights" are abbreviated like TWA 800 while others are fully spelled out. It is standard for American Airlines to be fully named instead of abbreviated. See Air Disaster List by Airline. KyuuA4 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tribute page problem

Was trying to call up the tribute page to update a passenger spelling, but when I do, it displays/reverts my status as logged out rather than in (and the page shows up nonexistent if you type in the URL straight - ???). Any mods/experts who can explain? Chris Rodgers 09:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, just discovered problem is it's a separate wiki and therefore presumably requires separate creation of id, etc. Chris Rodgers 09:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

map

It would be great if we had a PD map of the flightpath.

Done. (SEWilco 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Uh, come on. Theres accually an ARTICLE on this? Son Goku22

Suggest moving some material

As this is a very long article, going beyond the level of detail normally found in Wikipedia, I'd suggest moving some material to a separate wiki such as the 9/11 Encyclopedia, which could be linked from this article. I'm particularly thinking of the timeline - better to mention key events than list the whole timeline.

It's important to record as much detail as is available, but not all of it should be on Wikipedia. --Singkong2005 ^talk 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that?--MONGO 07:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The time line for this article is unnecessary because timeline items are already covered in the 9/11 Timeline. If article size ever becomes an issue, the time line for this article should be removed. KyuuA4 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore, the addition of various images, particularly at the bottom are not "cooperating" with the page layout. KyuuA4 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Crash Infobox

Added crash infobox typically found with all airliner incidents. I merely used the article itself to fill in the table.

Upon filling in the numbers, I failed to include the number of fatalities from Tower 1. KyuuA4 03:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

20 November 2007: Hi, as far as i see, the photogr. is one of the second impact (2wtc). The gear is coming down northward. White smoke shortly after the fuel-explosion at 2wtc. black smoke at 1wtc. the picture or the caption had to be changed, if i´m right. --Asdfj 09:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline Materal

Here is all the material included in the timeline for this article.

See also: September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks

All times are in New York Time (EDT or UTC - 4).

Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

6:02: Mohammed Atta flies Colgan Air (Portland International Jetport, Portland, Maine to Logan International Airport, Boston, Massachusetts), along with Abdulaziz al-Omari. It is reported that Atta broke into a fight in the parking lot of Portland International Jetport.

6:45: Atta calls another hijacker to confirm the attacks are on while sitting on Logan International Airport.

7:59: Flight 11 takes off from Logan International Airport; it is bound for Los Angeles, California.

8:13: The last radio communication is made from Flight 11, when a hijacker accidentally addresses flight control rather than the plane intercom. A recording of what is believed to be Atta's voice says, "Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." The flight path begins to stray away from the scheduled one and moves southwards. It is also reported that Flight 11's transponder signal is turned off at this time.[1][2][3].

8:19: Betty Ong, a flight attendant on Flight 11 [4] alerts an American Airlines reservation desk of a hijacking in progress, including the stabbing of two crew members and a passenger. Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney shortly afterwards begins telephoning the Boston Flight Services desk. Neither desk is prepared to take calls of this nature, but both eventually begin further transmitting the information [5].

8:20: The FAA's Boston Center flight controllers decide that Flight 11 has probably been hijacked.

8:21 Flight 11's transponder signal is turned off but the plane remains on radar screens. (Prior to the 9/11 Commission's report, news organizations reported this time as 8:13 or immediately thereafter.)

8:25: Boston Center flight controllers alert other flight control centers regarding Flight 11; however, NORAD is not yet alerted.

8:37: Flight 175 confirms sighting of hijacked Flight 11 to flight controllers, 10 miles (16 km) to its south.

8:37:52: Boston Center control notifies NEADS (Northeast American Defense Sector), the northeast sector of NORAD, of the hijacking of Flight 11. The controller requests military help to intercept the aircraft.

8:42: The FAA's New York Center requests information about Flight 11 over the radio. Flight 175 responds: "Ah, we heard a suspicious transmission on our departure out of Boston, ah, with someone, ah, it sounded like someone keyed the mikes and said ah everyone stay in your seats." [6] New York Center acknowledges and says it will pass the information on. Shortly after, Flight 175 itself is hijacked and also begins to move southwards.

8:46: Two F-15 fighter jets are scrambled from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, intended to intercept flight 11. Because Flight 11's transponder is off, United States Air Force pilots do not know which direction to travel to meet the plane. NEADS spends the next several minutes watching their radar screens in anticipation of Flight 11 returning a radar contact.

8:46:40: Flight 11 crashes at roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) into the north side of the north tower of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99. (Many early accounts gave times between 8:45 and 8:50). The aircraft enters the tower mostly intact. It plows to the building core, severing all three gypsum-encased stairwells, dragging combustibles with it. A massive shock wave travels down to the ground and up again. The combustibles and the remnants of the aircraft are ignited by the burning fuel. Since the building lacks a traditional full cage frame and depends almost entirely on the strength of a narrow structural core running up the center, the fire at the center of the impact zone is in a position to compromise the integrity of all internal columns. Two home video cameras are known to have recorded the impact (see above). People below the severed stairwells in the north tower start to evacuate; no one above the impact zone is able to do so.

8:46 to 10:28: At least 100 people (some accounts say as many as 250), primarily in the north tower, trapped by fire and smoke in the upper floors, jump to their deaths. There is some evidence that large central portions of the floor near the impact zone in the north tower collapsed soon after the plane hit, perhaps convincing some people that total collapse was imminent. One person at street level, firefighter Daniel Thomas Suhr, is hit by a jumper and dies. No form of airborne evacuation is attempted as smoke is too dense for a successful landing on the roof of either tower.

8:49:34: The first news and radio organizations report an explosion or incident at the World Trade Center. CNN breaks into a commercial at 8:49. CNN headlines first read 'World Trade Center disaster.' Carol Lin, who was the first anchor to break the news of the attacks, said:

"Yeah. This just in. You're looking at obviously a very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center, and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. CNN Center right now is just beginning to work on this story, obviously calling our sources and trying to figure out exactly what happened, but clearly something relatively devastating happening this morning there on the south end of the island of Manhattan. That is once again, a picture of one of the towers of the World Trade Center." [7]

Later, Sean Murtagh, CNN vice-president of finance, in an on-air phone call, said from his office in the CNN New York bureau that a large passenger commercial jet hit the World Trade Center.

8:50: NEADS is notified that a plane has struck the World Trade Center as they continue to locate the flight on radar.

8:53: The F-15s at Otis Air Force Base are airborne. Still lacking an intercept vector to Flight 11 (and not aware that it has already been crashed), they are sent to military controlled airspace off Long Island and ordered to remain in a holding pattern until between 9:09 and 9:13.

10:28:31: The north tower of the World Trade Center collapses from the top down, as if being peeled apart. Probably due to the destruction of the gypsum-encased stairwells on the impact floors (most skyscraper stairwells are encased in reinforced concrete), no one above the impact zone in the north tower survives. The Marriott Hotel, located at the base of the two towers, is also destroyed. This second collapse (the south tower had already collapsed) is also viewed live on television and heard on radio.

Navigation

Where the Flight Data Recorder and the Voice Recorder found?

What was the probable mean of Navigation by the terrorists? - terrestric, VOR, RNAV? Is there any clue from the flight path? From what distance could they see New York?--84.137.52.62 14:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the FDR and CVR were not found for AA11 or UA175. However, the FDR and CVR were both found for UA93. Both were also found for AA77 at the Pentagon, but the CVR was so badly damaged that nothing useful could be extracted from it. The FDR information for AA77 and UA93 and information on use of autopilot on those two flights, as well as air traffic control and radar tracking data for the four flights are available from the NTSB.

It appears that Hani Hanjour keyed in coordinates for Ronald Reagan National Airport, which is located close by to the Pentagon. I think it's safe to assume that Marwan al-Shehhi (UA175) and Mohammed Atta (AA11) also used autopilot.

On UA93, I think the captain Jason Dahl fought with the hijackers and may have done something to damage the autopilot. By this time, airplanes flying around the country (UA93 included) had been alerted of the attack on the WTC, so Jason was aware of what was going on. The autopilot may have still been working, but if you look at the altitude profile for UA93, you see that Ziad Jarrah may have had trouble flying the airplane and was a particularly poor (and most poorly trained) pilot of the four. The plane rapidly lost altitude after it was hijacked. Keep in mind that at point G on the chart, they were flying over Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Here and in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, the tops of some mountains exceed 3000 feet, so the plane was already frighteningly close to the ground when the passenger revolt happened. The field near Shanksville is 2200 ft above sea level. If the passengers never took the plane over, I'm not sure Ziad had the ability to keep flying the plane all the way to Washington. They were heard on the CVR saying something like "bring the pilot back", perhaps meaning that the First Officer Leroy Homer was still alive and was needed. --Aude (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How exact is the picture in the article about the flight path. Maybe there are other pictures, that show a more detailed flight path (with more steering corrections)? (give me a link). Even from the shown fligth path in the article it seems to me not straight enough for sole autopilot use. The same is for the not very straight flight path of UA 175. The pictures make me think that there should have been at least many heading corrections to the autopilot. Given the excellent visual flight conditons at that day, from how far could they have seen New York. Does there flight path follow some other visual clues (river, interstate highway, big cities)? In many countries investigators tend to make after a crime a detailed reconstuction with participation of the caught criminal (sometimes filmed and shown in the news). Was there a live reconstruction of the flights of the four airplanes and the military airplanes? I confess, that I can't see a real sense for that, but in many countries a Crime reconstruction is routine. And since we know (a little bit) how many detailed investigation was carried out after the attacks I could imagine such reconstruction flights (maybe with switched off transponders) to compare with the radar data targets of Sept. 11. --84.137.58.178 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Third video?

I see this point has been raised before. A photo caption says "three videos" captured the crash. Just two are mentioned in the article. Since this is apparently an error, I will change to "two." Please supply a cite if there was a third video.--Mantanmoreland 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The third video isn't quite a video, but a series of shots taken from a web cam by Wolfgang Staehle. I have edited the caption and added a reference regarding the web cam. --Aude (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Must say that I have never heard of that one. Can you supply a cite if one not already in the article?--Mantanmoreland 17:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The cite is in the paragraph, "Jules Naudet, a French cameraman, and Pavel Hlava, a Czech immigrant, both filmed..." --Aude (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hijacker Seating

Where did information regarding their exact seating come from? KyuuA4 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Appears to be incorrect, according to the grainy jpegs of the flight list at [8]. Checking the first jpeg, page 1 of the flight 11 passenger list, shows Atta and Alomari in row 8, not 9. ADave (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

new

see at Crash Infobox

Added a question on 20 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfj 09:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC) corr. bypp! --Asdfj 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm done editing for now. I may think of more to add later, but overall the article is comprehensive, well-sourced, and ready for FAC. One issue I do see are places where the article cites a news source, such as this on the San Francisco Chronicle's website. While this is on their website, it's a verbatim republishing of text from the 9/11 Commission Source. It's fine to link to this page, as a source, but the citation is given in such a way that makes it look like the San Francisco Chronicle authored and published it. The material really needs to be attributed to the 9/11 Commission. It's also possible to directly link to the material on the 9-11 Commission website. --Aude (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduction needs work

I tried to wikify the introduction, and one of my colleagues reversed it. Guess I should have explained:

"American Airlines Flight 11 was a scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport."

When? Just one day, or was it a daily flight for years? When did that period end? Encyclopedias give context.

The period ended on September 11. Don't know when it began. -- Veggy (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So we could say something like: 'Before September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 11 was a regularly scheduled U.S. domestic passenger flight from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, to Los Angeles International Airport" ?Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

How about we forget the regularly scheduled part (since I have no idea when Flight 11 first began flying) and put instead, "Flight 11 was the first flight hijacked as part of the September 11, 2001, attacks and was deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center." -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The active voice is preferable. How about including something like "...five passengers hijacked the airplane and deliberately flew it into the North Tower..."?Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The title in bold needs to come in as soon as possible and it has to be the subject of the lead sentence. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Why not say "five passengers hijacked the airplane and deliberately flew it into the North Tower"?Thefactis (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the title has to appear in bold as soon as possible and be the subject of the sentence. Something your example fails to achieve. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do you get that rule?Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD <-- Learn it, laud it, love it. -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"It was hijacked by five men and deliberately crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City as part of the September 11, 2001, attacks."

We should state the date when this happened. Unless gender was a factor, we should describe them not as "men" but by their role on the flight. How about "five passengers", or "five hijackers"? Any how about stating that they crashed the plane into the buildings instead of using this passive counstruction that would allow that perhaps someone else did?

I figured September 11, 2001 was specific enough. I have no idea how someone could make the mistake of thinking that it was hijacked, but crashed by some other entity. -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be plenty if it said that. Instead it describes it as "part of" those attacks. That's clear to us because we already know the history. Encyclopedias are supposed to be clear to people who don't know.Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would give more credit than that to the reader. Anyways, it used to say that, but the FA-review rightfully removed it. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What was the reason for removing it? I see no reason to stress gender, but if the hijackers are "men," then we must give the gender of the flight attendants.Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason is September 11, 2001, attacks is date-specific. There's no reason to be redundant. And on the same note, "hijacked by five hijackers" is redundant bad writing. Why must we give the gender of the attendants> -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never suggested using that language. Why would you insist upon stressing the gender of the hijackers and not of their victims?Thefactis (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Men is factual and neutral. It's not "terrorist", "fanatic", "madman", or anything that might be construed as POV. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Then "women" or "female flight attendants" should be fine too, right?Thefactis (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you need to change it to that? "The hijackers stabbed two female flight attendants and a male passenger and overpowered a male pilot and a male copilot"? It sounds awkward. When I said neutral, I meant against the word "terrorist". "Passenger" and "flight attendant" are not biased (or potentially biased) wording. -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people..."

Why not say "stabbed" or "cut," which is more specific? If it's important that the hijackers were male, then why not mention that two of their initial victims were female? The only problem I can see is that it wouldn't seem quite as laudatory.

Don't know, obviously—the plane crashed. And no, we're not writting "don't know whether they were stabbed or just cut" or "murdered" as you did. -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Stab" is a subset of "cut," so surely we could use "cut." Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the issue of sex has anything to do with this. The hijackers stabbed two flight attendants and slashed the throat of a third man, Daniel Lewin. Injured works just fine in the lead. Specifics are mentioned in the body. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, if gender isn't important, then why call the hijackers "men"? And why use the vague general term "injured" when the 9/11 Commission report says that (according to the flight attendants who called AA) the hijackers "stabbed two unarmed flight attendants" and also "stabbed" Danlie Lewin? (p. 5)Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a better word than the overly-used hijacker then. And "terrorist" is too hotly debated. I'm not obscuring any facts from the 9/11 Commission. You go into detail in the body, not the lead. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not: "the hijackers stabbed at least three people on board..."?Thefactis (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fine. "Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers stabby-stabbed at least three people..." Eh...? -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, if the stabbers are identified as male, then we need to mention that two of the viciims were female. And we should mention that the stabbers were armed (perhaps specifying with boxcutters) while the stabbed were unarmed...Thefactis (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, why do we need to mention the sex of the flight attendants? See remark above. And why in the world would the reader think the hijackers somehow stabbed people unarmed? What, did they stab people with their bare hands? -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"...forcefully breached the cockpit, and overpowered the pilot and first officer..."

This isn't supposed to be a rousing adventure story for preteen boys. How did they get into the cockpit? What did they do there?

Again, don't know how. You really haven't tried to research this, have you? -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Then at the very least we need sources for "forcefully" and "overpowered." PS: Hold the comments about me.Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think stabbing two flight attendants and slashing the throat of a third man qualifies as "forcefully". And the AA pilots didn't fly themselves into the North Tower. Also, citations don't typically go in the lead unless there's a point of extreme controversy. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that wording suggests that they entered boldly and violently. The 9/11 Report says nobody knows how they did it. (p. 5) It's enough to say that they got into the cockpit unless you have a reliable source. I am baffled by your comment about the AA pilots. Why would anyone blame them? Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It's clear you need to read a little more than page five. The flight attendants report the injuries to three people, threats of mace. Specifically Betty Ong says "guys might have jammed their way up there [the cockpit]". It would not be speculative or original research to use those words. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

(Yet another personal attack, in lieu of reliable sources, Veggy?) The 9/11 Commission report clearly states that the hijackers "stabbed" two unarmed female flight attendants and one male passenger, ant that while "Ong speculated that they had 'jammed their way in,'" but "[w]e do not know exactly how the hijackers gained access to the cockpit..." (p. 5) If you know of any other srouce to the contrary, you need only supply it, Veggy.Thefactis (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because we don't know exactly how they breached, it is not speculative or original for us to say they did it "forcefully" and that they "overpowered" the pilots. Sources are not usually cited in the lead, but if you want, we can include Inside 9/11. They use those exact words. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If we don't know how they got in, or what happend, how can we say they did it forcefully and overpowered someone? How do you know it wasn't done by trickery or stealth? What is your specific, reliable source on that?Thefactis (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I already mentioned Inside 9/11. Every way the Commission Report suggests the hijackers may have gained access qualifies as "forcefully". And with Atta at the controls, it's clear the hijackers (one way or another) overpowered; that is, overcame the authority of the pilots to fly the plane. -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mohamed Atta, who was a known member of al-Qaeda,[1][2] and trained as a pilot, took over the controls."

That makes him sound like a hero. I suggest either spelling out his role more clearly throughout, or deleting him from the intro and describing his role later.

I wrote "hijacker" above—what people think of him is their own business. We're not here to promote points of view. -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

To avoid the POV problem, shall we take Atta out of the intro, or else attribute all the plane's post hijack trajectory to him?Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Atta was the pivotal man in 9/11. Why would his presence in the lead cause POV problems? -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's fine to mention him, provided we don't paint him as a swashbuckling hero. We must present him neutrally or not at all.Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're the one thinking of him as a hero. The sentence makes no opinionated remark. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about me, it's about the article. This construction is an NPOV violation. If the reason isn't clear above I'll explain it yet again.Thefactis (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, explain it "again". Because in everything you've written, I haven't seen anything concrete. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Air traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew stopped responding to them. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Atta mistakenly transmitted announcements to air traffic control."

Far too verbose. My previous edit suggests a way to compress it without losing anything.

All you did was conjoin the two sentences with "but". -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Take another look.Thefactis (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. You put the words "did not know" which needs a clear citation that they were definitively ignorant until that point. I avoided the issue altogether by just saying they realized it was hijacked at the moment Atta came over the speaker. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. How about something like this: "Air traffic controllers knew that the flight was in distress when the cockpit stopped responding, and realized that flight had been hijacked wehn the hijackers accidentally transmitted announcements to air traffic control."Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the comma after "responding" and we're in business. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Do it. Thefactis (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

... Can't, I'm too scared... -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Why would you be afraid? If you have no courage what are you doing here?Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You do remember you were the one with the problem. I think the sentence is fine, but I am in agreement with your suggestion provided you write it grammatically-correct. -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew."

How about simply "called Americn Airlines to report the hijacking"? We might add "They described the hijackers and the injuries they had inflicted" but it isn't necessary here.

Why not? A lot of information is based on their testimonies. Why would we cut parts out? -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The details belong in the body, not the intro. To the extent we do describe the conversations here, we should be clear.Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And the intro is supposed to summarize the body, a large part of which involves these conversations. I can't see how the words "passenger and crew" condemn the sentence to be split like that. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Condemn"? "cut parts out"? I'm not sure what you mean. What I'm suggesting is something like this: "On board, two flight attendants called Americn Airlines to report the hijacking. They described the hijackers and the injuries they had inflicted on passengers."Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the second sentence is obscure. It sounds like the flight attendants inflicted injuries. "On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines and provided information about the hijackers and injuries inflicted on the passengers and crews." -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean that people might infer that the terrified flight attendats had called their bosses to report that they themselves had injured the passengers and fellow crew? Oookay, then how about: "On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines and provided information about the hijacking and the injuries which the hijackers had inflicted on the passengers and crew"?Thefactis (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean your writing skills could use some improvement. "On board, two flight attendants contacted American Airlines and provided information about the hijacking and the injuries which the hijackers had inflicted on the passengers and crew"? Instead of that convoluted mess, why don't we just use the original sentence? -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attacck, tantamount to a tacit admission of defeat. Tell me, how is the oritinal sentence better?Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Clear and concise. -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"The aircraft crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center..."

That makes it sound like an accident. Why not say that Atta (or the hijackers) flew the aircraft into the tower?

How can you argue about "deliberately" above and then pretend it sounds like an accident later on? Give some credit to the reader. -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't "argue about 'deliberately' " (For now I shall ignore the use of the term "pretend" which suggests a failure to "assume good faith," a key value here at Wikipedia.) If reliable sources agree that the hijackers flew the plane into the tower, why not say so? Thefactis (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying you, Factis, I'm saying the article—the article argues that the plane deliberately crashed. It doesn't sound like an accident to say "crash". The reader is intelligent to follow the prose. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"argues"? Wikipedia isn't the place for arguments. The article should state clearly that the hijackers (or Atta) flew the airplane into the North Tower.Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It does that in the second sentence. "Deliberately crashed". Why would the reader get lost here? -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of the other exculpatory language and this won't matter.Thefactis (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Active voice is generally preferable.Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is in active voice. It doesn't say "the tower was crashed into by the plane". -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"...the impact killed all 92 people aboard, including the hijackers."

No, the person(s) at the controls killed them. Why evade that? Also why stress that the hijackers died, when we've already said everybody on board died?

No, the impact was the direct cause of their deaths at the hands of the hijackers. Don't introduce anything that may become POV fodder. -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I see: We should name only the most immediate cause of death, even if it was the inevitable result of a recent act intended to cause that death? So by that reasoning it wasn't the Nazi prison guards and doctors who killed the Jews, but rather it was gas, starvation, and diseases that did it? If someone deliberately infects another person with AIDS, and he dies, then the person who infected him isn't a murderer because the person died of AIDS? Is that what you mean?Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Relax, Kahane, you're supposed to be assuming good faith, remember? It sounds like you want to repeat yourself at every sentence, mentioning "at the hands of the hijackers."... "They found the remains of people killed at the hands of the hijackers."... "Many people witnessed the plane crash at the hands of the hijackers." The reader can make the connection that "deliberately crashed" means exactly that without wasting words. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Strike two, Veggy. Why push this phrase "at the hands of the hijackers"? That isn't Wiki. What do you mean? It's important to avoid that sort of POV. This isn't an editorial.Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not playing baseball. And it looks like you proved Godwin right. I have no idea anymore what you're trying to argue here. What do you want the sentence to say? -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"The hijackers deliberately flew the airplane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, killing everyone on board as well as hundreds of civillians who happened to be in the North Tower that morning..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefactis (talk • contribs) 04:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Thefactis (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where would that go exactly? Why would we repeat "deliberately"? And: "The hijackers deliberately flew the airplane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, killing everyone on board as well as hundreds in the building." More efficient wording. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work Veggy: "The hijackers deliberately flew the airplane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, killing everyone on board, as well as hundreds in the building." Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Many people in the streets witnessed the collision..."

Collision? Would you use that term to describe a plane hitting a ship at Pearl Harbor? Or a fist hitting a jaw in a brawl? If not there, why here? Doesn't that suggest an accidnet? Also, why focus on the streets? People also witnessed the air strike from sidewalks, parks, highways, from inside the building and from other buildings, etc.

Yes I would use "collision" because it's the most neutral word. I wouldn't use "witnessed the kamikaze dive" or the "horrendous brutality" to describe it. -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Nobody suggested using any of those terms. How about "bombing," "strike," or "impact" used below?Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

We use the word "impact" in the next sentence. There were no bombs involved and saying "witnessed the strike" is too vague. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is a bombing. They used the airplane as a missile. But perhaps only a sophisticated person would understand that, so I'll settle for impact. But which part of "witnessed the strike" is vague? Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Bombing is a POV word. Editors need to look as impartially as possible. It was a collision in the most basic sense. And I already said that "impact" is used in the following sentence so it would be redundantly bad writing to keep using it. "Strike" sounds to me like the plane didn't completely hit, it just glanced off. Then again, it may work. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean "bombing" is NPOC and therefore isn't ever appropriate? Not even in the bombing of Hiroshima? Please explain.Thefactis (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, no bombs were involved on 9/11. A bomb was involved at Hiroshima. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Veggy, this is a type of bombing: turning an aircraft into a missile, as the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor, although here it's a civillian target. The jet fuel makes it a kind of bomb, like a giant Molotov cocktail. But I don't expect the average joe to grasp that. It's sufficient to say: "The hijackers flew the airplane into the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York City. Many people saw the aircraft strike the building."Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See, having to explain it to me like you've tried is exactly why I'm opposed to using that word. The Average Joe is who we're writing this for. And I'm not repeating the "deliberately crashed" sentence here. -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Jules Naudet captured the impact on video."

That detail belongs far below, where it is. Also, in this context it could suggest that his video was what appeared on the news that morning; It did not. Also, if we must mention Naudet, we should hint at who he is.

Jules Naudet captured the only clear footage of the plane crash. It's not problematic to use his name, properly linked, in the lead. And we do mention who he is in the article. -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Problematic"? No, it's a question of balance and proportion.Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't see how balance is affected. Explain. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Naudet film may be clear, but it doesn't seem particularly significant. What does it tell us? Contrast the Zapruder film, which has been a fertile source of clues about the Kennedy assasination, and yet isn't even mentioned until well into the article.Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, being the only clear film footage of the first strike of the biggest mass-murder in history seems particularly significant to me. That's why we use a fair-use image of it in the article. The Kennedy assassination isn't a featured article. It isn't even a good article. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what about the stills? And why discriminate against written accouts? Doesn't that violate NPOV? Who cares if the article is great? The issue is the film. This article isn't a showcase for French folks you know.Thefactis (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since I'm the major contributor, I care that the article is great. I didn't spend weeks researching this to have it devolve into mediocrity. Visuals are incredibly important and indelible in these events. Going back to your Kennedy example, the lead doesn't mention any accounts. And for an article of that size, the lead is too small anyway. It really is a bad example. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize how central you are to this article. Perhaps the reason the Kennedy assasination lede doesn't mention any accounts is that accounts are naturally secondary to the events? If it's a poor example, what would be a good one?Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, surprising, huh?—Someone who actually cares about the information on the article. Since this article is a featured one, clearly this is a good example. -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"News agencies began to report on the incident soon after and speculated that the crash had been an accident."

Vague.

How so? -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean?Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're having problems with "soon after", we could change it to "within minutes" to be more specific. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good start, but "agencies" sounds like French wire services, when I believe it was cable and broadcast radio and tv. Also, which ones speculated that it was an accident? I'd like to see a source on that.Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It can sound like whatever you want it so sound like, but that's what they're called. Want to see source? Click that little scroll bar on the side of your screen down to the "Crash" section and read. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That link only proes my point. First to report it were CNN, WINS and the like, no? Why credit old fashioed French agencies?Thefactis (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

What word would you suggest? -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe "Within minutes news media began reporting that an airplane had struck the building." Or something like that. Assuming the above changes.Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is your suggestion conditional? -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in thousands of additional casualties."

That makes it sound like an accident, one with many tragic but unforseeable consequences, when in reality it was a deliberate mass murder.

Deliberate mass murder (while I agree with you) is not neutral wording. -- Veggy (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So suggesting that it was a mere accident is more neutral? How about "The bombing and resulting collapse of the tower killed hundreds of civillians"?Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do I suggest it's an accident after the second sentence in the lead says "deliberately crashed"? Again, back to the issue of "at the hands of the hijackers". -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get this phrase "at the hands of the hijackers"? All I'm suggesting is that we make it clear that the person who flew the plane into the building caused it to collapse and killed hundreds of people. Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Deliberately crashed", remember? -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, so where did you get this quote "at the hands of the hijackers"? Whom or what are you quoting? At what level do I need to begin here?Thefactis (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I created it to try and satiate your urge to continuously remind the reader that, yes, the hijackers flew into the building; the plane didn't just crash. The impact and fire caused the building to collapse. The building's collapse led to thousands of additional deaths beyond just the passengers. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting those words in quotation marks suggests that someone else said or wrote them. Namely me in this case. I never did, as you admit. So that's yet another personal attack. Enough. What I am suggesting is that we state the cause, and consistently use the active voice where possible. Exculpatory language violates the prohibion agains POV.Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How many times have you accused me of "personal attack" on here? Why do you think every critical remark I make is destructive? -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"During the recovery effort at the World Trade Center site, workers recovered and identified dozens of remains from Flight 11 victims, but many other body fragments could not be identified."

That's Bureaucratese. Do you mean: 'Once rescue workers had finished searching the rubble for survivors, recovery workers began to hunt for human remains. They recovered and identified at least partial remains of dozens of victims, but many fragments were not identified'? Thefactis (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I mean exactly what it says. I didn't mention a timeframe (before/after the rescue efforts)—I mean, the workers discovered human remains as they went about the recovery effort. -- Veggy (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why focus exclusively on recovery? Human remains turned up during the rescue phase as well as the recovery phase.Thefactis (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we can put "rescue and recovery efforts" as the rescue efforts lasted past the time these remains were discovered. -- Veggy (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

But why the contrived language? Why use the term "efforts"? Why not simply say 'Rescue and recovery workers found and identified remains of dozens of victims, but many fragments have not been identified'? Thefactis (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine. "Rescue and recovery workers found and identified remains of dozens of victims, but many fragments could not been identified." "Have" sounds like it's a work in progress. -- Veggy (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Do you have some reason to believe that they're no longer willing to identify fragments, Veggy? Please elaborate!Thefactis (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefactis (talk • contribs) 04:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The identification process is not actively underway right now. When new DNA technology comes in, they might try to match the remaining fragments, but the use of present tense makes it sound like there's a movement going on right now to finish identifying the last bits. -- Veggy (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Then what language would you suggest?Thefactis (talk) 02:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The suggestion I made two remarks back. -- Veggy (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding fatalities

According to the article Casualties of the September 11 attacks, there were a total of 2,602 ground fatalities in New York, presumably including a few people on the ground killed by the impact, debris, or leaping victims, plus those in WTC1 and WTC2. This page says that "over 1,300" were killed in WTC1. The page on United Airlines Flight 175 says that "over 600" were killed in WTC2. I know that "over" can imply "substantially more than", but we are talking about at least 600 persons who died on the ground who are not counted by adding the toll on this page and on the UA175 page. So, does anyone know if the 9/11 Commission -- or any other analysis -- came up with a more precise guess as to the distribution of fatalities between WTC1 and WTC2. Someone must know into which tower various fire units were sent. Is there any way to make the estimate figures on the two airliner pages more closely approximate the overall NYC ground death toll? I'm also posting this on the UA175 talk page. Sacxpert (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

i have been looking for a history of fatality estimates, i remember it took days before usia provided a more reliable estimate (cnn started out over 22k or (much) more if i am correct, anyhow it was not a credible figure for days or even months to come, perhaps only some time after afghanistan was bombed... don't think they just don't knew, initial figures were instanty incredible and its not at all my job. 24.132.171.225 (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of casualties, the intro to this article makes this claim; "which resulted in thousands of additional casualties." regarding the crash of this plane into the North tower. Thousands, plural, seems a bit much!--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost two years later, "thousands" still sounds like bad math, and in a few hours that word is about to go on Wikipedia's Main Page with the Featured Article. "casualties" doesn't always mean fatalities, but as I understand it, those who got out were almost always uninjured, and those who didn't get out almost always died. Art LaPella (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps it should be reworded to either "...hundreds..." or "...more than a thousand additional casualties." Alternately, we could go with what the infobox says, and write "...which resulted in approximately 1,600 additional casualties." I'd say go with the latter. Any objections or thoughts? 107.10.43.91 (talk) 04:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

On 9/11, were Atta and al-Omari on Colgan Air Flight 5930 or 4930 ?

The article states that "They boarded Colgan Air Flight 5930". However, on the Colgan Air page it states that "On September 11, 2001 Mohamed Atta, and fellow hijacker, Abdulaziz al-Omari boarded Colgan Air Flight 4930". Which one is it, 4930 or 5930? Oclupak (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Time of day question

It says they arrived at the airport at 5:41 am Eastern Standard Time, since daylight saving time is used during this time of the year does that mean they arrived at 6:41 am? Im confused. Crd721 (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Terrorists' remains

The article says that fragments of the bodies of two terrorists were discovered through DNA test and removed from the memorial where the remians of other victims were also located. But removed to where? --Lecen (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• 'The remains of the other hijackers have not been identified and are buried with other unidentified remains at this park.'

How can hijacker-remains be confirmed buried, without being identified? Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Cause

This is incorrect, or at least, not accepted as fact: "The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse". The impact didn't cause the entire building to collapse. The fire caused that. Noloop (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is exactly zero scientific evidence for the impact of the plane or subsequent fire causing the collapse of the tower. Such causality was never established - it was merely stated as fact in the official 9/11 Commission Report. Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth present scientific evidence to the contrary, none of which has ever been successfully refuted (since they always counter-argue). 4johnny (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not true. There actually is lots of evidence showing how and why this occurred, something the truth movement seems to completely ignore because a small group of "experts" said it wasn't so. And A&E for 9/11 truth is mainly made up of students and people who are in no way qualified to make such assessments. But if that is what you want to believe that is what you will believe. Please go preach somewhere else.Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Seth MacFarlane

It's a minor point, but the source about Seth MacFarlane (in the flight section) doesn't actually list AA11 as the flight he missed (nor does it contain enough context to say which of the four flights it was that he missed). I was going to be bold and add [9] as a source for that, but then I noticed someone removed another TV.com reference as an unreliable source (N.B., IMDb has the same information, but it appears that's also not considered a reliable source). I'd also rather not mark a TFA with a "not in citation given" tag, so I thought I'd see if anyone had a better source for the claim about MacFarlane. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Just one question

Is this today's featured article because today is the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks?--Martyleehi (talk) 12:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so is Today's featured picture.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Draft v. Final Report?

The cited "Structural Fire Response" paper is to the draft for public comment, http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=909256 . The final report is at http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611 . That should be substituted and cites checked against it to see if anything has changed. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Thousands

I changed "The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in thousands of additional casualties." to "The impact and subsequent fire caused the North Tower to collapse, which resulted in hundreds of additional casualties." in both the summary on the main page and in the article. There was no source for this in the article and considering something like 2500 people were killed at the WTC it is very unlikely that over 2000 (thousands) were killed during the collapse of one tower. SmartSE (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've copied your comments from WP:Main Page/Errors to here. I agree with your change. The infobox actually says 1600 and as with you I considering anything under 2000 isn't really 'thousands'. Nil Einne (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

#Regarding fatalities Art LaPella (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• The term casualty includes wounded but that is hard to quantify given the fuzzy impact of dust. An actual number of deaths, even if appoximate, would be better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.60.11 (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

About 1,400 deaths from collapse of North Tower: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/10/911-timeline-september-11-anniversary_n_953873.html#s353506&title=1028_am — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.99.126 (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm that doesn't agree with our article which says 1,600 in the infobox but that's unsourced and doesn't seem to be mentioned elsewhere in the article (which isn't good for an FA). Nil Einne (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This report http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm , cited in article for other matters, says 1355 trapped above crash site, and 107 died below. Not sure if that included emergency workers. So infobox may be right, but it should be cited. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)