Talk:United Airlines Flight 175/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hologram

I wanted to add this paragraph as every word is true, but I was ordered to get it approved on the talk page.

BEGIN

The clearest footage was taken by Michael Hezarkhani and broadcast on CNN, showing an aluminium hollow airplane that impossibly melts into the steel facade of the tower, amazingly without the tail fuselage breaking-off or deforming[1]. In the footage the tower closes up behind the penetrated wing and explosions are seen where there is no impact from the plane. Unlike the wingtips the vertical stabilizer inexplicably leaves no imprint in the tower. The lighting and proportions of the plane are unreal. In the absence of any hint of evidence of manipulation of Hezarkhani's footage and in the light of eye-witness reports of some sort of aircraft it must be assumed that dynamic holography * was employed *.

END

Of course you will say there were real planes because debris was found. But debris could have been planted whereas the footage had to have been faked or having recorded live hologrammes. T

The debris has never been scrutinized, no serial numbers, no nothing. There WERE strange going-ons. The footage just exists. It is how it was when broadcast. It is particularly easy piece of research to do, but I strongly suspect that almost NOBODY will investigate, and those who do, will not be posting their observations here because wikipedia has a strong adherence to the "official line" IMHO for no good reason WHATsoever. Governments lie, private corporations lie and defraud. There is no wikipedia-headline-page of "government lies", right?

U2r2h (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

In addition to being incorrect, this paragraph includes conjecture and analysis from your personal, Science Fiction influenced interpretation. This barely qualifies as information, let alone something that belongs on wikipedia.

The 'Hologram Conspiracy Theory' is widely peddled but has no possible basis in reality. If there was suspicion of image implanting it would be in the process of where broadcast images are transported electronically from outside broadcast cameras to T.V.s at home. Outside Broadcast Video is 'handled' by a number of computers before being transmitted to the Public. There are no such suspicians with 911 Video.Johnwrd (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually 175?

File:United Airlines 175 N612UA.jpg

Video and Flightpath Images?

Was that THE Flight 175? KyuuA4 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. The image appears to come from here. It is the actual aircraft, N612UA, however the photo was taken in April 2001 at JFK airport. I don't see Fair use rationale for using the photo here. --Aude (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Street engine

Does someone fancy doing some research and writing up about how the engine came off this plane as it hit the WTC and landed in the street? (and perhaps how the engine was from a 737....!)

Google for "street engine" and you will get a lot of information.

RenesisX

The famous wheel and the engine were "found" underneath large tarpoulin scaffolding. It is conceivable that they were "dropped" from there. There have been no photos of bounce-damage on the streets nor has there ever been ONE SINGLE PART traced with a SERIAL NUMBER. 203.172.184.19 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

map

A GFDLed map of the flightpath would be very nice. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. (SEWilco 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Crash Infobox

Added a crash infobox which is standard among articles relating to airliner incidents, notably crashes. The figure included in "Fatalities" only includes the number killed in the plane itself. However, the number dead from Tower 2 is not included. A figure adjustment is needed. Thanks. KyuuA4 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of jumpers were from the North Tower?

An anonymous IP stated, in an edit summary, that "The majority of jumpers were from the North Tower". I have found very little information about the "jumpers", and I'm curious if there is a cite for this statement. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This bit of information is trite, not important, and unverifiable as no one was keeping count of how many jumpers; that'd be inappropriate. It could only be based on the death counts from the two towers; and Tower 1 had a higher death count. From this, it can only be implied that the majority of jumpers came from Tower 1. KyuuA4 16:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there were lots of videos of jumpers (although they're damn hard to find nowadays). If there is footage of long periods of time wherein no one jumps out of Tower 2, but footage of many jumpers from Tower 1, then that would be good evidence that most jumpers came from Tower 1. But I haven't seen any evidence. I'd really like more solid information about the jumpers, as it's one aspect of 9/11 that America seems to be covering over or forgetting about. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Image overlap in Firefox

At the bottom of the page, the images are overlapping the text under FC5 Firefox -- Witchinghour 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried some rearranging, though the {{sep11}} template is too far down on the page. Maybe the {{sep11}} template should be redesigned? or maybe there is one too many templates on this page, and the top infobox could go? --Aude (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, all 5 terrorists have pictures included. Personally, I find objection in having one of them - let alone all 5 - pictured in this article. It's as if they're being acclaimed for this act. KyuuA4 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

File:Story.crash.sequence.jpg

Just so you know, this image has no fair use rationale for this article. One needs to be written before it gets deleted. --Haemo 04:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Victims?

What happened to the Victim List? IT only shows non-US victims and survivors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/{[[User:{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)]] ([[User talk:{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|contribs]] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip={205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs) 

WHOIS])

}}|{[[User:{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)]] ([[User talk:{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|contribs]] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip={205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs) 

WHOIS])

}}]] ([[User talk:{[[User:{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)]] ([[User talk:{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/{205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs)|contribs]] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip={205.160.224.17 (talk · contribs) 

WHOIS])

}}|talk]]) 18:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Power dive/rate of descent

Brhaspati, you have accuratedly described the average rate of descent in the final four minutes, but this does not mean that the power dive was at one consistent rate of descent over the full 4 minutes. As the text now reflects, the ATC controller responsible for UA175 at that moment gave an interview (cited in the text, and video is linked) saying that the plane "at the end" had indeed reached a descent rate of 10,000 ft/min. This does not imply that it was descending at 10,000 ft/min the entire 4 minutes, nor during the final few seconds when it was seen by witnesses on the ground. It just means that it reached that rate at one point, and was measured as reaching that rate by the ATC controller. No POV or OR here, or extrapolating, or stating as fact that it happened. Just reporting the testimony. 201.6.69.127 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

section on hijackers

WP:BLP1E states that people, like the hijackers, who are not notable except for the event, should be written about in the article and not have a separate article on them. It say's:

The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP1E#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event

Don't shoot the messenger. I am merely quoting Wikipedia policy, not just a wikipedia guideline. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is for Biographies of Living People. It's to ensure that we don't have articles on people who appear briefly in news stories on notable events, because such coverage is usually restricted to those news events and doesn't give a balanced picture of that person. It's partly to respect that person's privacy and avoid legal issues.
These hijackers — apart from being dead, which disqualifies them from that policy right away — have received such substantial coverage that we can source entire articles on them. Their lives have been covered in depth, in media coverage and in books, and the fact we have such long articles on them (not "marginal biographies") is a testament to this. To be honest, there's no chance these articles will get merged, or the hijacker articles deleted. 88.107.122.85 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Commented Dialog

He warned

Controller:" Got him just out at 95 hundred, nine thousand now..."

Manager of New York Center: " Do you know who he is?"

Controller:" We don't know who he is...we're just picking him up now"

"New York Center: " All right heads up man, it looks like another one coming in"

Then two minutes later, Cameras trained on the burning tower captured the view of United Flight 175 as it came across Manhattan and turned and crashed into the second tower.

The above was commented material showing dialog within New York ATC moments before flight impact. KyuuA4 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Exact Death Count

For AA11, there is a exact (or more exact) death count from within Tower 1. Is there a more exact death count for Tower 2? KyuuA4 06:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Contradicting Flight Paths

Just a quick look shows a Conspiracy Theory viewpoint. However, given the amount of material here, I decided to dump it here -- just so that others can get a look at it -- and see what they think of it. KyuuA4 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, the one-sided usage of the term 'Conspiracy Theory'. As if the Official Account is in no way a 'Conspiracy Theory' because the very mention of the words 'Conspiracy Theory' just brings with it negative connotations. Alternate theories of 9/11 are quickly labelled as 'Conspiracy Theories', misleading people into believing that because it is a 'conspiracy' theory, therefore it must have been devised by a lunatic. And by the way, the passage below 'Contradicting Flight Paths' is giving the facts of what can be seen from the news on that day (and of course, you should go check it for yourself, as immediately believing everything from this passage just defeats the purpose of rational thinking). And thank you to the OP, for being an example of someone who labelled (knowingly or unknowingly or purposefully with or without intent) a piece of writing that simply pointed out the contradicting news footage from that day (which I have checked and done so for myself from many different sources), as 'Conspiracy Theory'. To label this a 'Conspiracy Theory' is in my opinion unfair as it does not mention anything other than an aircraft hitting the tower but instead it is simply asking why different news stations showed different shots that contradicted each other and why the live footage are different from the replays showed later on. But yes you are right in that, it does give the notion of an alternative conspiracy theory and that it is something that the official accounts a.k.a. the official conspiracy theory have not touched on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if Si lapu lapu were correct in there being a contradiction, the entire section is unsourced and qualifies as WP:OR. There needs to be a WP:RS which notes the contradiction. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Quick question: Did a plane hit the tower or not? KyuuA4 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's another point. Speculation over differences of view from different camera angles is WP:trivia. It is natural different camera angles showing the event to have different views and viewing angles. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes it may be trivia. But the contradictions are too great to actually be due to differing camera angles!! Take the footage (that I assume- taking that you are all knowledgable of the events of 9-11- you all know) of the second plane hitting the south tower shown at the trial of Zacarias Mossaoui.. The plane in that footage shows a jetliner approaching the south tower in a level horizontal path. The many other news footages shows the plane literally dive-bombing into the south tower! I do not know why any of you has not noticed any of this!! And no, I am no advocate of the "No-Planes-Used Theory" (a theory which I think is as ridiculous as the government theory). Please go and do your research regarding this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
There actually exists the fine scalled UA175 flightpath 3D simulation (my colleague did on my request already last year - see Youtube channel "achimspok" video named "UA175 - the last 12 seconds" where the 3D simulation is presented) taking into account many different videos of the plane, and which confirms the seemingly contradictory flightpaths at the many different videos in fact are the same, and so that the "alternative theories" arguing with the conflicting flightpaths are a bogus. What is more allarming than the refuted claims about conflicting flightpaths is the fact that the plane was during whole its descent flying some 570-600 mph (as the 3D simulation confirms and the NTSB acknowledged the speed in its report already in february 2002 - I've added it to the references), which is 150+ mph more than is the maximum operating speed of that type of aircraft and also well outside its structural integrity envelope. This serious issue is discussed in the Pilots for 9/11 truth movie "9/11 World trade center Attack". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumetues (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradicting Flight Paths

A very important anomaly of the event surrounding the moments before and when Flight 175 made impact with the South Tower and one that has not really got the attention of the mainstream media or public is the fact that different news footage shows the plane approaching the tower in different ways. These contradictions went largely unnoticed and supporters of the official 9/11 story dismiss these videos as the work of conspiracy theorists who had edited and manipulated news footage. However these shots were seen live or later replayed on the day the attacks happened.

The first set of contradicting footage shows Flight 175 approaching the South Tower from different directions. In the footage of the live coverage by NBC, the news chopper covering the unfolding events is approximately to the north of the WTC Towers. The North Tower was already struck by Flight 11 as smoke billows out of the impact zone. The two TV news anchors commenting on the developing events do not notice any incoming aircraft but only the explosion and the resulting huge fireball is seen live. From the NBC live footage of the South Tower being hit by Flight 175, no plane can be seen approaching the building from either the right or the left side. Therefore it is then assumed that the aircraft must have approached the towers from a southerly direction since the two big structures would have prevented viewers from seeing the plane approaching its target because only the north faces of the towers are seen on camera. This same footage of the South Tower being hit by the second plane is seen again over and over later on in the day. However, differences could be seen in the same NBC footage. News stations later showed the same footage, but this time with a plane approaching the towers from the right hand side of the shot. The backdrop was also completely gone from the scene. The background consisting of buildings and a body of water can be seen in the live NBC footage but later on, it changes into an empty blue sky backdrop. Later versions of the same live footage seen on the news shows the plane flying in to the shot from the upper right (and with the backdrop reappearing once more in these versions) as oppose to the earlier approaching plane flying in to the scene (with an empty backdrop) at level angle from the middle right. The live shot and the ones shown later on could not be from different helicopters or vantage points since it is the same shot from NBC.

The second set of contradictions are to do with the different angles at which Flight 175 approaches its target. In one video footage showing the towers from underneath the Brooklyn Bridge, the plane's approach to the South Tower is horizontal. This footage was the one used at the trial of alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. The Moussaoui shot is in contrast to other news footage including one from CBS in which the plane is shown dive-bombing into the building. Another CBS shot later replayed on news stations features the Empire State Building in the middle of the shot and the WTC Towers to the left and further away from where the camera was. This is presumably the same as the earlier CBS footage but from a different angle and vantage point. Again, the plane is seen dive-bombing from the upper right corner of the video to the middle left where the towers are standing. The blatant contradiction can be easily spotted when all the three mentioned shots are played together at the same time.

Poor taste image

200px|right Image removed due to "poor taste". Does anyone else object to this? I'll have to admit; the image does bring a chill to my spine. Other images were included in the infobox, like the pre-impact view ABC news had; however, such were removed due to copyright reasons, or other similar reasons. Suppose, if anyone can provide some kind of image to be used in the infobox, that would be nice too. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You may not agree with my reasoning, but it is a very-grainy, copyrighted image, so it should be removed anyway. The exact frame may not exist elsewhere, but surely similar free images can be found. - BillCJ (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh, it's OK. Like I said, that still particular image does give me the chills. Therefore, I moved the public domain image up to the infobox. Then took in the crash sequence image used in the 9/11 article. As "gory" as it looks, an image depicting the "event" is needed to fully illustrate the article. None of us can avoid the fact that it happened. KyuuA4 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin sabotage - Golbez Vendetta

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_175&diff=187061974&oldid=186913367

PLEASE research. The statements I made reflect reality.

TLC reference

Both of the references for The Learning Channel documentary "Flight 175: As the World Watched" currently redirect to the front page of investigation.discovery.com. I'm unsure if this is intentional or not, but surely there's something better to link to besides the network website's front page. AniMate 20:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates on this page

I feel that coordinates don't belong on this page. It could of been at Boston-Logan International Airport or at the place where the towers were. But heres the catch: The plane could of been anywhere, and it no longer exists. Explination Please?

K50 Dude-(Talk Page) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC).

I also thought it was odd that coordinates were included in this article. I have removed them. --Aude (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Accident??

Ixfd64 removed the 'Aviation accidents in major metropolitan areas' category tag because this was not really an accident (an edit I reversed pending this discussion). The other similar categories that this article falls into all say 'accidents and incidents'. The most correct fix is to rename the 'Aviation accidents in major metropolitan areas' to 'Aviation accidents and incidents in major metropolitan areas' but until someone does that I would think that the inclusion of this page into the current category is reasonable.--Fizbin (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2009 (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 American Airlines Flight 11 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 AA11 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 also posted this on the AA11 talk page. Sacxpert (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Take-off Time?

The article follows the 9/11 Commission Report and various transcripts of conversations, in identifying the take-off time of Flight 175 as 8:14. However, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics gives a wheels-off time of 8:23. Similarly, for Flight 93, the take-off time was 8:41 in the Commission Report, but 8:28 in the BTS:

http://www.bts.gov/xml/ontimesummarystatistics/src/dstat/OntimeSummaryDepatures.xml

The scheduled departure time and the actual departure time (rolling back from the gate) are both the same in the BTS as in the Commission's Report.

I am considering inserting the BTS wheels-off times for this flight and Flight 93 in the articles. Johnm307 (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Christine Hanson

Why on earth does Christine Hanson redirect here? Xaerun (talk) 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Presuming we're referring to the same girl: probably because she was allegedly murdered in this flight.Beingsshepherd (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

'According to Flight 175...'

Is there s primary source for the info in this programme? Notreallydavid (talk) 07:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:UAF175 Crash.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UAF175 Crash.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Transponder

The introduction to the article states that 'the aircraft's transponder was turned off..." however the 'Hijacking' paragraph gives a cited statement that "Unlike Flight 11, which had turned its transponder off, Flight 175's flight data could still be properly monitored.." This is a contradiction and one statements should be deleted or clarified - i.e. did the hijackers switch off the Mode S transponder but still squawked their altitude or could ATC simply still see the aircraft's primary return? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.4 (talk) 07:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Which/that

"United Airlines Flight 175 was a passenger flight which was hijacked..."

I've always been pretty shaky on the whole which/that issue, but my gut says it should be "passenger flight that was hijacked". I'm hoping someone who is smarter than my gut will chime in and set me straight. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

that sounds better to me. I await further comment. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Still not sure, but I think my gut may be right this time; I've made the change here and on the other three hijacking articles. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Myth about the video showing the wing disappearing behind the building, letting to believe the airplane was added with computer animation

Can we mention this and a link to where it it debunked? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a new one...where is the reliable reference?--MONGO 04:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on United Airlines Flight 175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Murray St. Engine

After Flight 175 slammed at the South Tower on 9:03 AM.An engine of Flight 175 was found on Murray St. However, when you take a deep analysis, you will find that the Books Nash (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Ignore this and read second part Books Nash (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Murray St. Engine

After Flight 175 crashed on the South Tower, an engine landed on Church and Murray St. If you all take a closer look on the engine, you will find out that the engine type this cooling duct assembly is used on. It is used on the JT9D-7 series.The name of the component is HPT Stage1 Cooling Duct Assembly. There is a history behind this assembly as I began to read more. This component was part of the early JT9D-7 series engines that were used in development of Boeing's 747 line of aircraft. The "7" series engines have gone through many revisions but are exclusively used on 747's. Many years later, P&W decided to work with NASA in the development in a new technology to improve engine performance and reliability. This improvement was made specifically to this section of engine. Tangential On-Board Injection (TOBI or "R" for Radial) was the newest improvement to reduce nozzle temperatures by over 2% which could open the door for a more powerful engines based on the "7" series engine. The new model of engine would be called 7R4+Revision Letter. The 7R4D engine is the one that is specified for United Airlines Boeing 767's.

So. We have two data points indicating that the Murray Street engine is a Pratt and Whitney JT9D-7 series engine: the HPT Stage 1 Cooling Duct Assembly which the manufacturer indicates is for use only with the 7 series engine, and we have the diffuser casing of the Murray Street engine matching perfectly the diffuser casing of a 747 engine --for which model of Boeing aircraft Weezula says the JT9D-7 series engine was exclusively used.

So. All data so far seem to indicate that the Murray Street engine is not a JT9D-7R4D engine, as would have been on Flight 175. (And the Murray Street engine certainly is not a GE CF6 engine from Flight 11.)

Unless I'm missing something --and I don't think that I am, though I am no engine expert-- how did a 7-series 747 engine wind up on Murray Street?

Unless I'm missing something, that engine did not come from Flight 175

So, then, what struck the South Tower? And, uh, where is Flight 175?

Books Nash (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you find reliable sources and references for your comments above. Please remember Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, dealing with well sourced facts and not a repository for conspiracy theories. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I get to the part where Books Nash claims he is not an engine expert....full stop. Regardless, opinions that are not backed by reliable references are....opinions.--MONGO 18:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Airlines Flight 175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Impact speed

The article still lacks an authoritative source as to how the aircraft came to have an impact speed circa 40 km/h or 20 MPH faster than its certfied top speed. Did it have a tail wind or something? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The article simply notes the speed observed. Certified maximum speed is not the fastest the plane can go, just the fastest it can safely go at a given altitude. Several commercial aircraft have exceeded the speed of sound in upsets and accidents. The speed near sea level was in a powered descent, completely outside the intended performance envelope of the aircraft, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be done: it just wasn't a safe thing to do. Acroterion (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on United Airlines Flight 175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

A photo of the plane before impact

Can somebody upload one, please? Iwillfollowyou (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary. A pic of a Boeing 767 is on the appropiate article page. David J Johnson (talk) 11:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Boeing 767 Manufactured

Can someone get information on Flight 175 767, of the number of the 767 manufactured? (eg. 7th or 18th 767 manufactured?) Books Nash (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Airlines Flight 175. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The impossible CGI Wing of Stanley Prainmath

So, let me get this straight... there are at least 2 administrators (supposedly experts on 9/11) claiming that a wing entered the 81st floor of WTC 2 - nevermind that NIST and any other organisation claims that only the fuselage did. Nevermind that Stanley Prainmath says exactly the same in my link (to his testimony). All you have is a reliable super "source" in a form of artistic licence, a decade old CGI. You, people, are disgusting and a true reason for the low quality of Wikipedia. And yes, Stanley initially claimed that a wing impacted his office, but he's recanted this a long time ago (and as mentioned above - anything else would be impossible). His corner office at the 81st floor of WTC 2 was nowhere near any wing, let alone 20 feet away. Direct testimony and goverment reports are not a "source" because "Youtube" - but artistic licence from a low budget TV show fits the standards of Wikipedia. Laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParallaxHunter (talk • contribs) 08:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Having finally arrived at the article talkpage after edit-warring, perhaps you'd like to rephrase your suggestion so that it is a polite, collegial explanation of your suggested edits, leaving out personal attacks against other editors? You are expected to discuss first. You should be able to cite the NIST report without implanting a YouTube video, as NIST would be a far superior reference that people could read. Your edit was reverted by one administrator, not two - I just warned you for your obvious edit-warring, and should probably have added a warning for your intemperate behavior.
Without judging the specific Prainmath situation, portions of the wing most certainly entered the building - the engines are the heaviest part of the plane, and the inner portion of the wing spar is correspondingly heavy, along with landing gear. The outer portions of the wing are another matter, but certainly debris entered, as opposed to intact portions. Whether they entered at Prainmath's location or not will require you to cite NIST, rather than YouTube. Acroterion (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Ill look over NIST again and see what if our article is indeed inaccurate. But the website YouTube is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes especially in articles like this one.--MONGO (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

All of NISTNCSTAR1-2B, Analysis of Aircraft Impacts into the World Trade Center Towers Chapters 9, 10, 11 & Appendix A. It's down to calculated desk and office furnishings damage. And, of course, no significant part of any wing entered floor 81. What's more, nothing hit the southwest office of Stanley Prainmath. I did not offer the Youtube video as an ultimate source but as a quick validation (for anyone to see) that he maintains that no wing hit his office, he rather saw collapsed walls from the shockwave and aircraft debris. Your sources lead to early-post 9/11 interview (when he was confused) and, ultimately, a sensationalist CGI from "Inside the Twin Towers" documentary where a wing flies over his head. Again, it's the same person and videos of him stating that are everywhere. It should be changed to aircraft debris - not a wing. It's important to get rid of it because it devalues the value of wikipedia, giving place to sensationalist, improbable and above all... not real.. situations.ParallaxHunter (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, that's helpful. Early accounts are often confused, and Prainmath would understandably have been shaken by the experience. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent out-of-process FAC nom

I've just removed a FAC nomination for this article as out of process. Per instructions at the top of the FAC page, a nominator has to wait two weeks following an unsuccessful nomination before nominating again (the same or any other article). The reasoning is that if a nom is unsuccessful then similar issues identified with the archived article may be present in other articles presented by the same nominator, and time should be taken to fix these. In this case the issues with unreferenced text identified in this nom were also present in the recent nom of this article by the same editor. Pls take time to ensure that at the very least, all paragraphs end in citations to reliable sources. I'd also recommend taking this article to Peer Review before considering another FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

United 175 Crash Time

Hello Everyone, I was just posting this because I personally feel that the general consensus of the WTC2 Crash time is and should be 9:03 A.M. in comparison to 9:02 A.M. Even though the "Collapse of the World Trade Center" and "Timeline for the September 11 Attacks have it currently at 9:02 A.M. The reason for this consensus change, is because I personally believe that we should go by the consensus of authoritative websites from the current decade, such as the 9/11 Memorial Official timeline, the United Flight 93 Memorial Official Timeline, and History. com as well as past sources such as the FEMA Report, the 9/11 Commission Report, and most other timelines from the 2000s and 2010s state the crash time at 9:03 A.M. By Comparison only the NIST Report and the National Transportation Safety Beuaru show the crash time at 9:02 A.M. I personally believe that using the most authoritative source which in this case if the National 9/11 memorial and Museum page for the true time. --Miked1992 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Miked1992--Miked1992 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The "Nationalities of the dead" section

I'm somewhat disturbed by this section. The article for AA Flight 11 lists only the nationalities of the victims, which I think is more appropriate. Can we look into getting this changed? Removing the nationalities of the terrorists? Incerto501 (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Problems with refs 1 & 2, per access and archives

There's a problem with ref #1 [2] The archive merely shows a title page, "HIJACKERS TIMELINE (REDACTED)", and the original leads to " nefa foundation" "Just another WordPress site". Per our WP rules, should we continue to cite this source? Or do "we" feel that the information is accessible in some manner, just not per our available online sources?

For reference #2,[3] the archive also displays only the title page, but the original is accessible. It worries me that the archive has not captured the full document. I don't understand how "web.archive.org" works to archive (multiple page vs single page) documents, and this "one page only" situation makes me uneasy. Fortunately, the inaccessible info of ref #1, seems to be supported by ref#2. Perhaps more experienced editors have some insight to share. Please ping if you reply! Thanks, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:13, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Source 1 is discussed in/ref'd from many govt pages but I cannot find the report itself on an official govt site. I suspect what we have is legit but would prefer better origin URL.
I think I fixed the staff report issue on #2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, here I think: [1][2] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, thanks for fixing problem #2, very kind. Also, really appreciate your discovery of the FBI link/source for item #1. I have formatted it, and substituted for the old "link" which led nowhere. I'm not accustomed to working with "sfn", but I did put it "down there".
Is it normal/acceptable to mix sfn citations with the inline citations? I have very little experience with sfn, so I don't know. I hope I did this correctly. Thanks for your assistance. I see that you have made a number of edits, and I hope to appreciate your work by having a look, sometime soon! Best, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks good! And not sure tbh, although it's done on some articles like Apollo 13, and that's an FA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Mixing {{sfn}} with inline citations is fine, but if an article has both types of citation to the same source it tends to lead to an "sfn multiple-target error", as here. I've fixed this by converting all of the Shane (2009) references to sfn (though they could equally, and possibly more helpfully, all have been converted to inline refs). Best, Wham2001 (talk) 05:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Wham2001, It didn't have the dreaded "red letter warning" when I asked, and I can see that mixing within the same citation/source is a problem! I have observed your corrections closely, a learning opportunity. Three things are missing, though. #1: The ISBN, which I have boldly added. #2: The secondary authors/editors names. #3: The retrieval date for the four inline citations. Would it be okay for me to add the other names? What about retrieval date, is this of importance ? I don't have as much experience working with sfn, more accustomed to inline citations. My thanks to you and @ProcrastinatingReader: for the replies. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 22:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Which secondary authors? I think only Shane wrote that source (per Springer). I usually don't like ISBNs for journal articles but don't really object much either. Similarly I don't think retrieval matters for journal articles. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader Its here, at this point, that the editors? additional authors?? are listed. See citation #2, which appears to be an inline citation. This ref provided a doi, isbn and retrieval date. It was cited four (a-d) times. All three: the editors/authors, isbn and retrieval date were there before, and now they are gone. This is why I am confused. Thanks and sorry, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, I have finally digested Wham2001's cmts below, and revised the source formatting. Hope I haven't caused problems, while you were working on a GA review.(I didn't realize.) Hurray for your achievement, I am so pleased, both for you and for WP. If I understand correctly, this also goes to DYK! Very best wishes, Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Tribe of Tiger, adding the editors' names sounds like a good idea to me. It will not cause any problem with sfn if you add them to the template using |editor-last1= etc. The short footnotes module basically scans each reference for the authors' surnames and the year of publication, then generates an "anchor" out of that which the footnotes link to. So adding anything else to the reference is fine. I do wonder, though, whether for this source, which as far as I can see is a collection of essays published as a book rather than an issue of a regularly-published journal, {{cite book}} might be more appropriate than {{cite journal}}? Then I think I would format the reference as
  • Shane, J.M. (2009). "September 11 Terrorist Attacks Against the United States and the Law Enforcement Response". In Haberfeld, M.R.; von Hassell, Agostino (eds.). A New Understanding of Terrorism: Case Studies, Trajectories and Lessons Learned. pp. 99–142. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0115-6_7. ISBN 978-1-4419-0114-9.
Like ProcrastinatingReader, I would only add |access-date= for websites, news articles, etc. I see that they are missing for e.g. the Hijackers' Timeline source so perhaps that's what you meant?
Finally, if you work much with articles using {{harv}} / {{sfn}} then this script gives helpful and accurate annotations of problems with missing / multiple targets. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Wham2001, I have revised, per your suggested format. This is what's needed, IMO. WorldCat lists this as a book. I'm assuming an essay, collected into a book, could have a previous "doi", the one given connects to the book, after scrolling to the bottom of the long, long page. I agree that access dates are normal only for websites and news. (I wasn't referring to the Hijackers' Timeline, in this instance.) At one point, because the ref we were discussing had a doi to a website, it had a retrieval date, just before your edit, I believe. Thanks for assisting, and I will have a look at the script by Trappist. Plus, reading your wiki text is an educational experience! Much to learn! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 04:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "NIST report (58mB pdf) table 6-1: "Video file V4, footage taken at ground level near the Castle Clinton National Monument" ... Appendix E (end of the report) = still images from the video with the Michael Hezarkhani name on it (quick preview: http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8219/nisthezpicdw9.jpg)" (PDF). {{cite web}}: External link in |title= (help)
  2. ^ Federal Bureau of Investigation (February 4, 2008). "Hijackers' Timeline" (PDF). NEFA Foundation. p. 218. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 12, 2008. Retrieved October 6, 2008.
  3. ^ "Staff Monograph on the "Four Flights and Civil Aviation Security"" (PDF). National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. September 2005. pp. 17–26. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 12, 2014. Retrieved November 8, 2012.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

(
)
Flight 175 explodes after hitting the South Tower.
Flight 175 explodes after hitting the South Tower.
  • ... that the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175 – which was crashed into WTC South during the September 11 attacks  – did training exercises in four different countries to prepare for the attack?
    • ALT1:... that after being hijacked, United Airlines Flight 175 almost had two mid-air collisions with other aircrafts before crashing into the South Tower of the World Trade Center (pictured)?
  • Comment: Promoted to GA today. QPQ exempt (4th DYK nom). This is for feature on 11 September 2021, the 20th anniversary of 9/11. Suggestions of alternate hooks appreciated; finding it tricky to come up with an appropriate hook.

Improved to Good Article status by ProcrastinatingReader (talk). Self-nominated at 21:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC).

  • Pinging EEng & valereee in case either of y'all got better hook ideas? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • – The article is new enough (promoted GA on September 4, 2021) and long enough (18,017 characters). It is well cited, appears to be neutral, and within policy. Earwig's copyvio detector detects 8.3% similarity (Violation Unlikely). The first hook is a bit long (195 characters), but within the 200 characters limit. Both the hooks are interesting, and it would be great to see this article on September 11. QPQ exempt, as it is user's fourth nomination. The hooks are not cited here, but are in the article (though I couldn't figure out the four countries where the hijackers were trained). Before approving, I'll wait to hear what EEng and valereee say regarding other hooks. You can also ask for suggestions on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Also, I would have added the image "File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpeg" with the nomination, but its completely upto you. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The four countries appear to be the US, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, although Kavyansh.Singh and ProcrastinatingReader, those sentences need citations. PR, I'm wondering if
ALT0a: ... that the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175, which was crashed into WTC South during the September 11 attacks, trained in four different countries to prepare for the attack?
...might be a little snappier? Still uses 'attack' twice, I thought about maybe:
ALT0b: ... that the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175, which was crashed into WTC South during the September 11 attacks, trained in four different countries to prepare?
...or:
ALT2: ... that the hijackers of United Airlines Flight 175, which was crashed into World Trade Center South twenty years ago today, trained in four different countries to prepare for the attack?
—valereee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Yup; source for the four countries is [3]. Also the Final Report of the 9/11 Commission[4] pgs 156-158. I like ALT2, maybe trim the link and I suppose both "WTC South" and "World Trade Center South" aren't too descriptive (maybe mentioning "South Tower" would be better if it can fit). RE Kavyansh.Singh: Image sounds good -- I don't know how to add it though, if someone can do that? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@ProcrastinatingReader – I'll prefer "World Trade Center's South Tower" or just "South Tower" over WTC South. And I have included the image, which is freely licenced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
– Approving ALT2b and ALT1. I prefer ALT2b, bit long but within limit. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 to T:DYK/P4


I am likely not knowledgeable enough in wikipedia editing or otherwise available to edit the information, but as a notice to anyone paying attention to this page, the summary on the page preview for this page states "Da boiz were flying and took a wrong turn and did crash". This does not appear to follow the guidelines set by wikipedia. I bring it up here instead of doing it myself so that someone can make this edit correctly more efficiently than I can. If necessary, or needed, redact, delete, or move my comments as needed. 2620:15C:8B:201:DF06:D8FF:C520:20C7 (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)nobleshawn 22:34 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023

There is a first person account without a source cited in the paragraph, or in sources. It’s the final paragraph in the attack section about seeing the second plane hit. It should more than likely be removed. 162.211.34.182 (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Airlines_Flight_175/Archive_1&oldid=1211414908"