Talk:American Airlines Flight 77/Archive 2

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

Fatalities doubts

The real number of fatalities is uncertain. It was suggested to be 95 (65 AA passengers and 30 on ground) based on page 7 of "Mass Fatality Management for Incidents Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction" (PDF). U.S. Army Research Development and Engineering Command and the Office for Domestic Preparedness. August 2005. http://www.edgewood.army.mil/hld/dl/MFM_Capstone_August_2005.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-06-24." Other sources (citation needed) suggest different numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.176.90 (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

unrude! why don`t you say "document"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.110.199 (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Pentagon doubts

Does anyone have a source for this claim?

Some people have voiced doubts about whether a plane really crashed into the Pentagon. Video footage from a nearby Sheraton hotel was confiscated by the FBI. An amateur recording taken just after the impact does not give the impression that a plane had just hit the building.

If not, it should probably be taken out. --GD 23:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree, this comes out. This whole Flight-77-did-not-crash-into-the-Pentagon business does not belong here at all. It is discussed under the misinformation and rumour page. Arno 04:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
The fact that it is discussed there does not mean it's irrelevant on this page. In any case, at least a link to that page is in order. There are several sources for the claims (see the misinformation page, which I now linked), if necessary the sources can be copied. Even though it's a conspiracy theory, it has enough merit, compared with the official version (which has no direct evidence at all) to be included. Paranoid 13:49, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I must say i strongly disagree with this. And there is real proof. I believe there are even slideshows free to download on this subject on the web. One very good example would be a "movie" called Painful Deceptions - An analysis of the 9/11 Attacks, which can be downloaded via the ed2k network: ed2k://|file|Painful_Deceptions_-_An_Analysis_of_the_911_Attacks.avi|405514240|84FDF929F34A6CD69A814FE891C0A216|/ NoSuchUser
The fact that there is a "doubt" to the accuracy of the facts by paranoid and factually uneducated individuals - whether or not they are Wikipedia users - is irrelevant. The article on the Moon landing does not use words such as "allegedly" and "most believe," and with good reasons: Because consipiracy theories regarding the Moon landing are hogwash, plain and simple. The same holds true for the "no-757" conspiracy theories. There is a page on the conspiracy theories. That page should exist, provided it presents the facts. A link to that article is sufficient. These conspiracy theories have no business on this page, which is intended to present the facts, not what some people wish were the facts./JCaesar.
The theory that the pentagon was not hit by a plane is excellently debunked by snopes.com , and the link which is under that catagorey apparently contains a number of half-truths, total lies and have even modified quotes etc. I don't think a site like that that clearly contains delebriatley incorrect infomation indented to trick people into beliving lies should be linked to without a disclaimer

Nitpicking time :D "Some people have voiced doubts about claims that the Pentagon was not hit ..." I'd put it "Some people have voiced doubts about claims that the Pentagon was hit ..." -andy 80.129.100.99 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC) The "not" is illogical. People claimed that the Pentagon *WAS* hit, and those other people DOUBTED it. ;)

It is very true that many educated people throughout the world (I wish someone made a survey!) have simply not found an explanation that clearly correlates the photographic evidence of the crash site and the official Flight 77 story. There may be an explanation, but the published photographs do not show clear evidence of the remnants of a large aircraft, and it is very logical that doubts have been raised. I don't care about conspiracies, I don't question any other story about 9-11, I make every effort to remain objective in anything I discuss. Shutting down and disregarding those who present these doubts is not fair. I have respectfully expressed in Wikipedia the fact that the same questions about Flight 77 have been raised independently throughout the world, but my contribution gets deleted within minutes no matter when I do it. WHY? I am not denying the official story of Flight 77, I am only saying that it is constantly debated by many. And that is true.

2007 continuation

I know people are going to hate me for saying this, but I really think there should be a small section about the fact that there are so many conspiracy theories. I dispute nothing, it's just I think it's best to talk about it, rather than vaguely allude to it. For instance, the "witnesses" section clearly gives an indication that some feel the need to prove it happened. Somebody mentioned the moon landing conspiracies. Well, there is a section about them in the Moon_landing article, as stupid as they are. I guess some feel that precisely because too many people believe that no plane crashed into the Pentagon, it shouldn't be mentioned. My point of view is, the more people believe it, the more we should talk about it, otherwise the lack of comment just fuels the flame. Maybe I'll add a proposition here in the talk page later today. Ratfox 20:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It's fair enough to mention the conspiracy theories, but please use mainstream reliable sources which discuss them (not the conspiracy theorists themselves). As an example see Flight 19#Bermuda Triangle connection, where a reliable source is used to discuss the "other" theories about what happened to the flight. Anynobody 20:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is a proposition. I am open to suggestions and critics, you can make your own version if you want. I mainly ripped off other wikipedia articles. I just think there should be a section about it, that is all. Ratfox 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hoax accusations (proposition)

Main article: Pentagon not hit by a Boeing 757

Due to the important political consequences of the 9/11 attacks, a number of conspiracy theories challenging the mainstream account have emerged. These propositions range from claims that the government of the United States had foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately let them happen, to allegations that the whole event was staged.

In particular, one of the most well-known theories contends that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, but by a smaller object (typically a missile or smaller aircraft). Various physical models are proponed claiming the damage to be insufficient for such an impact, and the witnesses are accused of having been paid off. The suspicions are fueled by the lack of clear video footage of the impact.

Due to the high visibility of the event, this theory is controversial amongst conspiracy theorists themselves, many of them now believing it was indeed flight 77 which crashed into the Pentagon. Some of them go as far as suggesting that the crash happened, but was engineered to make it appear that it did not, the purported goal being to divide, distract and discredit their community.

Okay. After waiting one week, I have now added my proposition to the page. I further suggest that no details of the theories should be given here, using instead the page dedicated to all 9/11 conspiracy theories, or eventually creating one just for this event.

I repeat, I think the hoax accusations are widespread enough to justify a small section. Even the moon landing page has such a section. Ratfox 21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is overly long, and is poorly sourced. The only source provided is not a reliable source. Also, if we include such a section, it needs to be titled "Conspiracy theories" and not "hoax accusations". --Aude (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, my proposition was here for one week, waiting hopefully for such comments. I don't mind if we change the name, I don't mind if we change the text. I just think that there should be a section talking about the theories, no matter how crackpot they are... I'll try to make a new version, hopefully more to your liking. Ratfox 23:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The current Conspiracy Theory section is biased and does not reflect the fact that 70 percent of the people in the US believe in this "hoax". I proposed that it be changed to reflect a NPOV. I don't believe in the conspiracies either, but reading the article sounds like it was written by someone who wants to express his disdain for such theories. --DesmondE —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC).

Conspiracy theories (2nd proposition, following suggestions)

Main article: Conspiracy theory about 9/11 attack on Pentagon

Due to the important political consequences of the 9/11 attacks, a number of conspiracy theories challenging the mainstream account have emerged. These propositions range from claims that the government of the United States had foreknowledge of the attacks and deliberately let them happen, to allegations that the whole event was staged.

In particular, one of the most well-known theories, started by Thierry Meyssan in a book[1], contends that the Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757, but by a smaller object (typically a missile or smaller aircraft). Though the book and its claims have drawn wide criticism from many sides, the theory is still popular with some conspiracy theorists.

Okay, second try. The section is shorter, named "Conspiracy theories", and uses about the only reliable source (Not of what happened, but of what the theories are). Let's try to agree on something so we can put it on the web page. For the moment, it a bit odd, because the article is debunking the theory without even telling what it is. Ratfox 01:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the article isn't debunking conspiracy theories so much as it is simply giving the facts of what happened. Anynobody 02:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "debunking" is a slight exaggeration. Still, for instance, there is a section named Witnesses. The term somewhat implies that there is a need to prove something. There is no such section in any of the other crashes. Also, in the section Security camera video it is said that it was released in the hope that it would dispel conspiracy theories, and concerns are expressed that the video are not clear enough to "end the talk of a conspiracy". Well, what conspiracy theories?
More or less, I guess I consider this particular theory to be the most famous one, and the wildest, ever since people pretended the moon landing was fake. In comparison, making allegations of dark governments secrets or pretending planes are remote-controlled are rather easy to do. But pretending that a plane which crashed in the middle of Washington didn't actually exist, that's really huge. That apparently many people still believe it, that's also huge. So we should mention it.
But I write, I write, and I see only now that you took care of it! ^^ Ratfox 20:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
... And there's a new version again. I don't mind, everything is summarized quite clearly. Ratfox 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick friendly FYI before I respond, you shouldn't feel compelled to try out potential versions here first, stuff almost never gets done unless editors are bold about editing.
I understand your concerns regarding using the word witnesses for a section, however speaking as someone who edits airline crash articles regularly, it's not really unusual. If there are a lot of witness accounts given in a source they could find their way into a relevant section devoted to eyewitness accounts. (In this case for example, the taxi driver who's cab was hit by debris from a street light isn't much different than people on the road near where Air Florida Flight 90 went down in 1982 and gave accounts of what they saw.) Anynobody 22:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Tsk Tsk Tsk. I know I may sound like a typical conspiracy theorist, but the evidence is all there. You just simply have to look for it.

By the way, it's quite obvious that a small blip like that of a plane is not a Boeing 757. Sheared lamp posts in the area also suggest a path that the plane might have taken. Judge for yourself. 71.131.182.235 (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Idiot should be mentioned

I want to make it clear that I don't agree with the French guy's idea of the US launching a missile against the Pentagon. His "theory" got coverage in major media as the first conspiracy associated with the Pentagon though, and some people in France buy it. It really should be mentioned in the article. Anynobody 21:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If it was only the people in France! I feel ambivalent about giving this guy more coverage than he should get, but I guess he's the guy who brought the whole thing to mainstream attention... Ratfox 22:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There are reliable sources about Meyssan and his theory, so it's reasonable to mention him. I think that Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin learned about Meyssan and caught on later. --Aude (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right about Avery and Griffin. In my experience with "theories" like this, one author comes up with something and two or three others go with it.
Ratfox is also right, there are plenty in the states and abroad who believe this nonsense. I've also never encountered anyone who buys this stuff but could give me a straight answer to a very simple question, Where is Barbara Olsen? (Along with the 757 and other passengers). They never seem bothered by their inability to answer it either. Anynobody 07:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Easy: She never existed, and the whole list of passenger was fake. Or if you know her personally, she's in prison somewhere. Or she was in the conspiracy. Or maybe you're the one in the conspiracy! ^^ Ultimately, I think some people believe that because they are just happier that way. Who want to be unhappy? Ratfox 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The ability of a B757 do travel at 530 mph at an altitude of 10 ft should be proven before it is included in the page.Also how it was immune to the aileron reversal phenomenon at this speed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.70.236 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hijackers

we lack the flight manifest which would put those hijackers aboard, couldn’t find one, if you stumble upon it, remove the tag. Quantumentanglement (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

photo caption

Captions should be written in a manner that they can act as a substitute for the image for people who cannot view them, or for the vision impaired, or others who are using screen readers to 'view' the photo. I changed the caption to Officially-released DOD footage from the Pentagon shows a "thin white blur" followed by an explosion as more descriptive of what the video shows than flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. Someone viewing the film will not see flight 77, but will see "thin white blur" (cited quote) followed by an explosion. 67.49.8.228 (talk) 07:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to be so disdainfully literal. The video shows, albeit in poor-quality, what hundreds saw that day: Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. To present it as something else just raises undue doubt upon the reader. And "thin white blur" is more confusing, in my opinion. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
You DO know that the camera was shooting at a blistering speed of 1 FPS. It isn't going to capture anything useful other than cars stopping to pay the toll or get the ticket. The aircraft was going at 500+ MPH. Simple. Havoc1310 (talk) 14:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The anonymous editor has a point about the video, but while we really can't expect much from a camera designed to take (low quality) photos of vehicles entering a parking garage, it's also all we have. Given the difficulty discerning what the video shows for users with poor eyesight/monitors I made the gif highlighting flight 77 from 2 frames of it, of all them it shows the part people need to see most, a few pixels of one showing a large black object with large tail obscured by a parking ticket dispenser followed by a white blur.
I'm not saying the gif replaces the ogg, which should be kept to provide the complete picture. Anynobody(?) 04:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Outstanding issues

I'm a bit dismayed at the FAC process, that this article passed with outstanding issues. I don't think it is FA quality just yet. Not sure whether to bother with my time, but here are outstanding issues:

  1. There should be a section on rebuilding the Pentagon and construction of the Pentagon memorials. It need not be long with excess details, but per WP:SUMMARY, this article is the place to go into more detail about Flight 77 and the effects on the Pentagon. That they had to reconstruct the portion of the Pentagon is because of Flight 77, and the memorials are for what happened with Flight 77.
    1. Added very brief information, though a little more could be said. --Aude (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Witnesses section can use some tweaking. Steve Riskus should be added with a reliable source. For the quotes from Dave Winslow and Tim Timmerman, it is unclear if they were in the same place as the Metro passengers.
    1. Took out the Metro passengers bit. --Aude (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. I think that information about the debris belongs in the recovery section. Firefighters and others in the Pentagon (evacuating or during rescue/recovery) found not only the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, but I know they found things like airplane seats. Some even contained victims. I'm quite sure Patrick Creed and Rick Newman mentions these details, though not sure the page number.
    1. This is partially done. More information is in Creed and Newman's book. --Aude (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  4. Some YouTube links to legit material may be okay, including material posted by Judicial Watch and Scott Bingham from FOIA requests. Also, the Purdue University simulations.
  5. More could be done with the bit about Donald Rumsfeld. The fact that he came out to help, I think help load some victims onto stretchers probably could go in a different section than talking about the casualties. That he left his office meant that he wasn't right there to speak with other government officials (e.g. the Vice President), though I know his deputy was there and handled that. Then, what about further response on an official level to keep the DOD operating? He could have gone to Site R (a backup site), but I think they sent Paul Wolfowitz. With Rumsfield's personality (known as stubborn), he insisted the Pentagon keep operating. The National Military Command Center continued to operate, even with smoke coming in. In the rest of the building, the power mostly stayed on. Rumsfeld had people come to work the next day at the Pentagon. I know that Steve Vogel talks quite a bit about this in his book.
    1. I had added something about this in May [1] with a link to the NPR interview with Rick Newman and Patrick Creed. This could be readded (with the NPR reference which people might like to hear) and expanded upon. Don't need to go into excessive detail, but something should be said about how the DOD responded through the ordeal.
      1. This is added, though can be tweaked per information in Steve Vogel's book. --Aude (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  6. For the sources, there are some other offline sources that I think are worth consulting for this article to make it more comprehensive. These include The Pentagon by Steve Vogel was published in 2007. It is more broad than 9/11, but talks a bit about 9/11 and rebuilding the section of the building. Another is Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon On 9/11, which is recently out.
  7. Something else that is lacking is discussion of how the Pentagon structure held up to the crash. The fact that this section was recently renovated, with reinforced concrete, blast-resistant windows, ... and the nature of the structure compared to the twin towers is something to address in the article. The ASCE report is a good source for this.
  8. The section about the hijackers, something should be added about how these five hijackers worked together largely separate (in San Diego and Arizona) from all the others. And, that Hani Hanjour was not part of the Hamburg Cell.

I have limited free time right now and periods of time with no internet access, while I am on wikibreak to work on this, but could help out when I do get some free time. --Aude (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have spent some time on these, though a bit more work is needed. I will have no internet access for approximately a week, but can come back to this later. --Aude (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Vandalism" or a self-appointed policeman’s overreaction?

On August 7, 2008 User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) stowed the following warning into my user Talk Page:

This is the first time that I’ve been accused of vandalism, ever. Such accusation is false and groundless. In addition, it is impolite and inconsiderate. Therefore, I ask for your patience, for I must defend myself from this grievous and unjust attack.

Yes, I did have a problem with an absurd little piece of text, as explained next:

ORIGINAL TEXT of 01:29, 5 August 2008:


With all respect for the victims of 9/11, I suppose you will agree that it's a little difficult to "inscribe the names" of "unidentified victims".

Reasons for my deletion

In WP:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no_article , Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales is quoted writing:


Thanks to my deletion (and this is a good example where 'to delete' may ultimately have a positive effect), said User talk:VegitaU obviously felt compelled to review and rewrite such phrase , which resulted in a better and augmented text, plus a refurbished, useful citation this time. So, now the article is a bit better –but I got a harsh reprimand nonetheless.

CURRENT CORRECTED TEXT of 14:38, 7 August 2008

NEW TEXT ADDED 14:38, 7 August 2008

Far from being vandalism, my edit had this clear and signed statement:


..so I guess your Siebot tool overdid it this time, and you fully believed it before making a more humane, more logical judgment.

ORIGINAL CITATION:

It's simple to check how the only verifiable data in that quote was its date.

CURRENT CITATION: adding a new link to "Lost and, Sometimes, Never Found"

Notice the new and useful link.

In short, I deleted a brief portion of text that made no sense, along with an useless citation, for the reasons that it was illogical, absurd, and in doing so I fully complied with the Wikipedia founder’s deletion policy.

In return, I’ve been accused of vandalism, no less (that is, I’ve been insulted), and have also been threatened to be blocked ‘‘the next time I delete or blank page content’‘ (even if when so doing I’d be in full compliance of Mr. Wales’ guidelines).

However, to my great relief, I’ve noticed this warning in User:VegitaU ‘s Talk Page:


The above block notice, probably put there by another Admin with more judgment and authority than User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) thinks he has, is a testimony toward the lack of maturity, or impulsiveness, of this Colombian youngster that has made American Airlines Flight 77 his own pet article.

Back to the beginning.

Other Admins, whenever they’ve made me a complaint (nobody’s perfect, I make my mistakes, so I don’t purport to be) have often had the courtesy of starting with a nice Thank you for your edits.

But User:VegitaU (“Veggy”) wrote, very menacingly:


Well, if it’s the last, it also happens to be the first, so I haven’t much of a chance, have I?

But, just what "disruptive edits"are you talking about? That's just your own POV.

Youngster, you need to learn some manners, some courtesy, and to have some respect. It looks like your Air Force’s education was not enough.

Regards, --AVM (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure can write a lot. That may have been useful in this case, but alas...
Not sure where you're confused here. You deleted a properly cited sentence from a reliable source. Big no-no. If it was poorly written this is where you could have brought that issue up for clarification. The remains were unidentifiable, the victims were not unknown. Either way, I've improved the wording as you didn't want to make the effort. Thank you for your edits. -- Veggy (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy

"The 189 victims of the attack are memorialized in the Pentagon Memorial adjacent to the Pentagon. The 1.93-acre (7,800 m2) park consists of 184 benches, one for each of the victims,"


How can there be "one for each of the victims" if there were 189 victims but only 184 benches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.84.123 (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

uhm, well there is no discrepancy. There were 189 deaths if you include the terrorists, and I don't think people would want them memorialized.Jason1170 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right about that, Jason1170, but that would mean that there is still a discrepancy with "The 189 victims of the attack...". It should say 184 victims imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Overlooked Conspiracy Fact

A lot of people overlooked the fact that nearly 100% of America's airline pilots (and the world's) acknowledge they could never, ever, ever run their plane into the Pentagon, even if their life depended on it, or anything that is of a normal height, or the height of the Pentagon - even if they were at the minimum required speed to stay in the air. That's the best hardcore, undeniable, indisuptable fact that should be included, that 99% of our pilots do not believe an airplane hit the Pentagon, knowing they could never ever hit such a building in their wildest dreams, or, in reality on a flight simulator.

Then, being so low to the ground at the alleged speed... yeah, pilots have a few things to say about that as well. Then further, hitting the pentagon on the outer-side, instead of the inner-inside, or crashing through the roof. Even if you guys don't put this in the article, you guys should talk to a pilot about the pentagon crash, you'll hear the same answers every time. I do have a question for anyone who knows. Did this attack, attributed to terrorists, on the American military play a major role in getting the legal approval to send troops to war? Jason1170 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Do you have any sources for these statistics? Consentium (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This could be a source: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ --Solde9 (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source: in fact, it's pretty much the opposite of reliable. Please stop pasting the link all over this page. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory section

The conspiracy theory section is not an attempt at explaining the nature of the conspiracy theories, but an attempt to debunk them. This is clearly a wrathful overreaching on the part of people who are not letting themselves remain neutral. On top of that it's laden with weasel words like "minutiae". 24.174.82.195 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Reality Check

On top of the fact that so many professional pilots admit they could not perform that manoeuvre, Hani Hanjour was described by his flight trainers as a terrible pilot who could not properly perform the most basic tasks. There are no photos of large pieces of debris, which a crash like that would certainly leave (as has been proved in all airline crashes, no matter how violent). The explanation that jet fuel melted most of the debris is fundamentally false, as it is scientifically impossible for jet fuel to burn at such a temperature to melt steel. The only images of the impact itself do not contain an aircraft. And yet the article states, against all scientific and logical reason, that Hani Hanjour hijacked Flight 77, a plane of which type he had never even attempted to fly (he was trained on regular flight training aircraft, I don't know which planes exactly but they are similar in size to an average Cessna), got past NORAD - the tightest air defence system in the world, performed a circular descent to near ground-level, a manoeuvre that his flight trainer stated he could not have performed, and crashed into a low building perfectly.

Looking at the evidence it's fair to say that this article deserves more than just a small "Conspiracy Theories" section. -92.11.156.43 (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I Agree I got surprised that on this article, which is the most suspicious one, it goes as if there was any challenging views on this event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.151.201 (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Propposed changes to the lead

"American Airlines Flight 77 was the third flight hijacked as part of the September 11 attacks,. and iIt was deliberately crashed into the Pentagon.

(Pbreak)

The scheduled U.S. domestic flight from Washington Dulles International Airport, near Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles International Airport was hijacked by five Islamic terrorists less than 35 minutes into the flight. The hijackers stormed the cockpit and forced the passengers to the rear of the aircraft. Hani Hanjour, one of the hijackers who was trained as a pilot, assumed control of the flight. Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard were able to make calls to loved ones and relay information on the hijacking.

The aircraft crashed into the western facadeside of the Pentagon at 09:37 a.m. Eastern TimeEDT..."

A few minor changes. The "and," is just weird. Paragraph break needed. "Domestic" and "Near...D.cC," seems redundant. Facade is the exterior. Technically true but "side" sums it up better since it broke through. Eastern Daylight Time (do we need a GMT conversion)? Any objections, tweaks, whatever?Cptnono (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop fighting and comment or it is happening without input. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I too have a request to the edit- this fire did not take days to extinguish. This was under control within a few hours. The World Trade Center fires were the ones that took months to put out. Adkted2me (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

David Ray Griffin *is* a reliable source for conspiracy theories

User:VegitaU reverted my edits with the following note:

David Ray Griffin is a noted conspiracy theorist and his fringe views are not citable as reliable sources.

Yet, the fact that he is a "noted conspiracy theorist" is precisely why he *is* a reliable source when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories. In fact, he is cited a full *9* times in the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article, linked to in the Flight 77 conspiracy section.

Reverts by User:VegitaU and User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge are examples of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. 97.104.226.129 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the details here, but the argument made above is wrong. If Mr. X is a well-known Flat Earth theorist, we may quote him in the Flat Earth article, but not the Earth article. IOW, fringe theorists belong in fringe articles, if they are notable enough, not in the main article, per WP:UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The above analogy is misleading because there is no flat earth section in the earth article. I only quoted DRG as a source for the conspiracy section. User:VegitaU's revert was based solely on the claim that DRG is not a reliable source for conspiracy theories, yet he is referenced 9 times in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories main article, which is linked to in the Flight 77 conspiracy section.
As far as WP:UNDUE is concerned, the views expressed are *at least*, if not more, widespread in reliable sources and supported by prominent individuals in the Truth Movement as Thierry Meyssan 's missle theory, which is also in the flight 77 conspiracy section.ArXivist (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There should not no "conspiracy theory" section in the main article unless there are serious mainstream sources, e.g. The New York Times, or Encyclopedia Britannica, describing those theories whenever they mention the main events. This is exactly what WP:UNDUE is for; otherwise WP will become a magnet for conspiracists of various stripes. And just like Earth has no Flat Earth section (last time I checked), there should be no conspiracy section in the main AA 77 article. Crum375 (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we accept opinions? "Instead, Hanjour likely ended up in Afghanistan where Al Qaeda recruits were screened for special skills they may have." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.5.41.156 (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Coverage of Fringe Theories is uneeded

I would like to point out WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Keep the conspiracy theories to the conspiracy theory article, please. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Irbis,
You're misreading the policies. There is nothing in WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE that says conspiracy theories must be kept in separate articles. In fact, an example of a conspiracy theory notable enough for it's own page, the Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, has a separate section in the main Moon Landing page.ArXivist (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is what WP:UNDUE says: "generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority. In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. " (emphasis added)
Clearly conspiracy theories should not be included per UNDUE in the main article, and in their own article they should be carefully described as views of a tiny fringe minority vs. the mainstream views. Crum375 (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE differentiates between significant minorities and tiny minorities. About mainstream subjects it says,
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.
This is why significant minorites get their own paragraph on mainstream articles, as you can see on the Moon Landing page. The example of a tiny minority, flat earthers, are described as having,
few or no modern proponents
In fact, the wikipedia page on Flat Earth only lists three living flat earthers. In comparison, there are thousands of prominant 9/11 Truthers. See: Patriots Question 9/11
Clearly 9/11 Truth fits the critera for "signifcant minority",
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
E.g. David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott, Kevin Barrett, etc.ArXivist (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
You can go to any lunatic asylum and find a dozen supporters of any fringe theory. The point is that we need mainstream reliable sources showing us that there is a significant minority, and the way to gauge that significance is to find an article in the NYT, or Encyclopedia Britannica, whose focus is on the event (not on the fringes) discussing that specific 'minority view' alongside the majority. That would qualify for inclusion in the main article. Not that we as Wikipedians can find a list of names. In other words, the reliable mainstream secondary (or tertiary) sources have to show us that there is a significant minority by including it in their own primary discussion of the topic. Crum375 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Reading WP:NPOV there are two criteria for a theory to be dubbed in the signifigant minority
1) Easy to name prominant adherants, which we have in this case.
2) Prevalence in reliable sources. Again 9/11 Truth fits this criteria. In fact, the flight 77 conspiracy section Irbisgreif deleted contained links to Time magazine! I'll revert.ArXivist (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
The point that you seem to be missing is that this is not the right article for this information. We have a 9/11 conspiracy theories article where many 9/11 conspiracy theorists are mentioned including Griffin, Cage, and others. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Quest, What basis do you have for Flight 77 not being "the right article for this information"? 9/11 Conspiracy Theories clearly fit the above criteria for "significant minorites" and therefore should be included. The Thierry Meyssan reference is from Time magazine for example. I agree that we may need to delete the Griffin research but there is simply no basis for deleting the entire section!ArXivist (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Quest and Crum, and have reverted ArXivist's attempt to add conspiracy theories to this article. There's clearly no consensus to do that. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
9/11 Conspiracy Theories fit the critera of "significant minorities". The section cites CNN, Popular Mechanics and Time magazine. I agree that the Griffin sources may need to be removed.ArXivist (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! Look at the history! I didn't add the conspiracy section- its been there for years. Irbis arbitrarily decides to delete the section, a few people agree with him, and that's a consensus? Wow...ArXivist (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
See the above section on Thierry Meyssan. User:Anynobody, User:Ratfox, and User:Aude agree that he should mentioned in the article. I agree as well. User:Paranoid and User:DesmondE agree that conspiracy theories should be mentioned. So we have a consensus, or at least a majority, for keeping the conspiracy section.ArXivist (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) WP is not run by polls, but by policies and guidelines. Here we have the issue of whether we are allowed (or required) to include a fringe theory per WP:UNDUE. UNDUE tells us to keep it if it is a "significant" minority, so that is the key. To decide whether it is significant or not, we rely on the best possible sources, i.e. mainstream publications like NYT and EB. If they mention the conspiracies where they address the events surrounding this flight (in their main article, not while focusing on fringe theories specifically), then it's "significant" and thus includable, and not otherwise. Crum375 (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Crum, here is the version you just edited [2] The conspiracy section references Time, CNN, and Popular Mechanics- all mainstream publications. That fits the criteria.ArXivist (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
But those aren't articles about Flight 77 per se. They are articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes those are articles about conspiracy theories concerning the "events surronding Flight 77". They fit Crum375's definition of includable material.ArXivist (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
What I said above is "in their main article, not while focusing on fringe theories specifically", which means that if they write an article on the conspiracies surrounding AA 77, it would be equivalent to WP writing a conspiracy article, which we already have. The issue is the context: if they write about the conspiracies as an integral part of their primary description of the event, then it's "significant", otherwise it isn't. Crum375 (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Crum375. Inclusion in this article is unneeded, place it in the 9/11 Conspiracies section, where it belongs. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
User:Crum375 seems to be adding criteria that is not found in WP:UNDUE. Specifically, the suggestion that the authors of reliable sources must "write about the conspiracies as an integral part of their primary description of the event" is nowhere to be found in WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, WP:FRINGE directly contradicts this claim. It clearly states that when referencing fringe claims "[e]ven debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents".ArXivist (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No, he's just explaining why they aren't significant to this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That and the fact that allowing idiotic conspiracy theories into articles does nothing to enhance the integrity of the articles. UNDUE is fully applicable here since no reputable engineers, researchers or scientists support the claims of the lunatic fringe 9/11 "truthers".--MONGO 01:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone (preferably an administrator) please explain why the following references are not allowed by WP:UNDUE using quotes from the actual policy?

CNN Article
Time Article
Popular Mechanics ArticleArXivist (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
All of your examples are articles dedicated to the fringe elements, and are not focused on the main events. So these sources would be fine for the WP article on the fringes only. If the fringes were a significant minority, then they would be included in CNN's main article, and they are not. Same for the others. Let's use my dog example. Imagine a journalist spots a dog doing a fancy trick on the White House's lawn. It gets written up in some local papers, and even some nationals pick it up for entertainment. This would be, possibly, good enough for a wiki article on the dog who did tricks on the White House's lawn, but not for the White House's main article. Same here: unless the fringes can be shown to be a significant minority, in which case CNN would be describing them in its main AA 77 article, they belong in the separate fringe articles, per WP:UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 01:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand. What's CNN's "main article"?ArXivist (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
CNN's "main article" would be an article CNN writes which gives us an overview or detailed description of what happened to AA 77. Not one they write to tell us about AA 77 conspiracies. Same for any other mainstream media. For example, if Encyclopedia Britannica's main AA 77 article mentioned the fringe theories alongside the mainstream ones, then the fringes would be considered significant, and would belong in our main article too. Otherwise, they don't, per WP:UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Where in WP:UNDUE does it say that a fringe view must be presented alongside a mainstream view in order to be considered a significant minority?ArXivist (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE says that a fringe view must be significant relative to the subject in order to be included with it. Otherwise, it belongs in a separate page. So how do we measure 'significance' relative to the subject? Since WP is based on reliable sources, and for contentious issues we need extra high quality sources, we do it by showing that reliable mainstream sources have included the fringe views in articles where they discuss the main subject, not in those where they focus on the fringes themselves. See the dog example above. Crum375 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You keep saying "we do it by showing that reliable mainstream sources have included the fringe views in articles where they discuss the main subject, not in those where they focus on the fringes themselves". Where is this explicitly stated in WP:UNDUE. If you haven't noticed, I'm looking for actual quotes from the policy.ArXivist (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Beware of wikilawyering. We don't have to provide quotes, we are saying how we feel the /spirit/ of the guideline applies. Consensus determines how the guideline is interpreted, not pedantics. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Actual quotes:

  • WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." (emphasis added) - IOW, if it's not significant, it does not belong.
  • WP:REDFLAG: "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources:...Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources"
  • WP:FRINGE: "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is."

The point is simple: you need to establish significance, and you need to follow the best quality "exceptional" sources, and you need to be sure not to give more notability to the fringes than the sources do. So if the source has an article titled: "AA 77" and includes the fringe view in it, it's significant for our own "AA 77". If it has an article called: "AA 77 fringe theories", it is acceptable for our own "AA 77 fringe theories". If we included the fringes under our own "AA 77", we'd be increasing its notability, by promoting it to the main article while our sources did not, which will violate "coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is" from above. Crum375 (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE- "A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. [...][The n]otability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources.
WP:NOTABILITY [Notability is when] a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject[.]
[...]"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
Since the criteria for notability is whether a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources, the content of the source does not effect the notability of the topic.ArXivist (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You are missing the key point. What you quote allows us to include fringe material in WP if it's notable enough, and we are including it, in its own article. To include it in the main article, however, it needs to be significant and for that it needs to be mentioned by the "exceptional" sources as part of their main article. Otherwise, we'd be increasing its notability by promoting it from a fringe related article to the main one, and that would violate WP:FRINGE, per my above message: "coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is." Crum375 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
No, the only factor in determining significance is the amount of coverage from reliable sources. It's right in WP:UNDUE.
"Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors."
You interpret "notable" as "legitimate". Not so. Prevalence in reliable secondary independent sources is what determines significance. They do not determine proper weight by considering "a viewpoint's prevalence in sources mostly mentioning the mainstream view" because-
A) This is not a clear-cut guideline in comparison to simple prevalence in reliable sources and would add an unnecessary amount of mediation/arbitration cases.
B) This requirement does not reflect notability, but "legitimacy". In what way is an article with hundreds of reliable secondary independent sources not notable? Would hundreds of reliable sources report on it in depth if it was not a significant minority?
C) Under this definition, no fringe theories can be considered significant minority, even if they were. If you weren't serious it would actually be pretty funny. You cited Encylopedia Britannica as an "exceptional source" precisely because it only documents consensus opinion. EB *CAN'T* document conspiracy theories unless it is mainstream academic opinion. On the wiki article, 25% of the EB is devoted to humanities, and only a fraction of that to history. EB cannot amp up the size of the Encyclopedia indefinatly, as WP can. There is simply no way they would include any significant minority, let alone one considered "fringe". You have already demonstrated bias by referring to CTists as "lunatics". You are seriously misinterpreting and abusing WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG.ArXivist (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering I was the one who insisted that there be a section about conspiracy theories, I regret to see that after all of this, the section has disappeared. Once more, the article seems like it is ignoring the elephant in the room... Though I guess that now, people will not add their own crackpot theory to the section. Ratfox (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Accident Type

I was surprised to see the type of this air disaster being described as Controlled Flight Into Terrain(along with Hijacking).

I thought it is usually being used to describe an airworthy aircraft being accidentally flown into terrains(such as mountains) as I had noticed from all articles on Wikipedia about air accident/incident I've read before. Further more, the Wikipedia article about Controlled Flight Into Terrain(CFIT) also described it as "an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, inadvertently flies into terrain" while in this case the plane is neither under pilot control(well,not the one should be^^) nor inadvertently flown into the Pentagon.

I think it should be deliberate crash or simply hijacking, but I am not sure as I'm still a newbie. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong please :) Blodance (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Good catch.Cptnono (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Whoever put that was probably making a joke. A bad one. Irbisgreif (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I always thought that CFIT was mainly concerned with the state of the airplane, putting less stress on the inadvertently. The plane was under control, there was a "pilot"—unlicenced, not a crew member, and murderous—and the plane did exactly what the "pilot" wanted it to do, and that was a flight into terrain, the pentagon. Then again, I admit that something like "deliberate crash" or "deliberate flight into terrain" would be a better choice of words here.--ospalh (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My problem with using that term here would be that calling this a 'controlled flight into terrain' would be like calling the holocaust an 'organized population control project'. It's technically accurate, but very misleading as to what was really going on. Irbisgreif (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I think when we hear someone talking about a man 'fell off' the 22nd floor and died, we tend to assume that the man accidentally fell, don't we? But technically, the term 'fell' can be used regardless of whether the man accidentally fell(accident), jumped at his own will(suicide), or got pushed on his back(murder), while they are totally different.
It's all right to use terms like 'fell' in our daily life as we can always ask the speaker 'How did he fell?', but when it comes to an article on Wikipedia, I think a more accurate term should be used in order to avoid confusion, as we do have one. As the article about CFIT itself defines CFIT as "inadvertently", I really don't think it's a good idea to use CFIT here. Hope I'm not getting too serious. :) Blodance (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
So good riddance to the CFIT. I wonder if we can find a concise phrase to tell that the hijackers flew the plane into a target. "Deliberate crash" sounds to me like they didn't care were the plane came down.--ospalh (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought the "accident type" in articles about air disaster generally describes "What happened to the aircraft involved?", so deliberate crash goes fine with me. Well, if there's real need to state that this plane was used in a targeted attack, then I think simply adding "suicide attack" would do, but for one phrase... sorry but the only phrase that came up in my head was "B-757 cruise missile"...:P Blodance (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Image Replacement

The image that was uploaded has an animated plane inserted in the first frame (just prior to impact). This is an assumption as to the location, and was never seen on the original footage. This animation should be removed from the image as it is presumptiuous as to the location of the plane, and slightly controversial as there are some that believe this was not an airliner that struck the building. In any event, the original clean images should be used. Adkted2me (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pilots alive

From the 9/11 Commission Report, it sounds like the pilots were relocated to the rear of the plane instead of being killed in the cockpit. No stabbing, bomb threats or anything to suggest that. And Barbara asked her husband what should she tell the captain, suggesting that the captain of the plane was in the back. Lucas Duke (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

File:DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG will be appearing as picture of the day on September 11, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-11. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 22:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Damage to the Pentagon on 9/11
Damage caused by American Airlines Flight 77 to the Pentagon as a result of the September 11 attacks. The flight was one of four commercial airliners hijacked that day, and the perpetrators crashed it into the building, causing 189 deaths, including all 64 on board the plane. The damaged sections were rebuilt in 2002.Photo: Tech. Sgt. Cedric H. Rudisill, USAF
Archive – More featured pictures...

Security camera video

It says in the Security camera video section that: "Department of Defense released filmed footage that was recorded by a security camera of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon, with a plane visible in one frame, as a "thin white blur"" I have looked at the videos and they don't show a plane. In one frame right before the explosion there is a small object to the right that in no way can be confirmed as a plane, and in the frame after that is the explosion. Nowhere is there a plane visible. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the word purportedly should be added. But I gather that any trace of 9/11 skepticism, is unofficially banned from Wikipedia articles. Beingsshepherd (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

it was not Boing 757

Overwhelming Evidence Pentagon Aircraft Data Is Not From An American Airlines 757

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/no-hard-evidence-aa77.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.147.157 (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Open Inquiry into the Pentagon Strike

In the absence of a Genuine and Independent Inquiry into the 9-11 Crime in general, a group or concerned citizens has devoted a great deal of time and effort to conducting a very comprehensive inquiry into the flight of a plane over Arlington, a flight generally coinciding with an explosive event that failed almost completely in its apparently-intentional demolition of part of the Pentagon. That partial demolition did occur, but not till about 35 minutes after the explosion and appearance of a fireball and subsequent plume of smoke.

This citizens' serious inquiry would totally dispute the entire Wikipedia section entitled American Airlines Flight 77 and gives the most serious reasons why this section needs to be totally rewritten if credibility is expected and truth even remotely upheld. I can do no better than quote the inquiry authors' own introduction, and close with the most passionate plea that those responsible (all of us) refuse to bow to political expediency and officialdom-driven populist opinion.

Honesty, objectivity and Truth absolutely demand this section be reconsidered in toto.

I quote:

To whom it concerns, i.e., everyone:

In 2006 Citizen Investigation Team launched an independent investigation into the act of terrorism which took place at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. This exhaustive three-year inquest involved multiple trips to the scene of the crime in Arlington, Virginia, close scrutiny of all official and unofficial data related to the event, and, most importantly, first-person interviews with dozens of eyewitnesses, many of which were conducted and filmed in the exact locations from which they witnessed the plane that allegedly struck the building that day.

Be forewarned: Our findings are extraordinarily shocking and frightening. They are also deadly serious, and deserving of your immediate attention. This is not about a conspiracy theory or any theory at all. This is about independent, verifiable evidence which unfortunately happens to conclusively establish as a historical fact that the violence which took place in Arlington that day was not the result of a surprise attack by suicide hijackers, but rather a false flag "black operation" involving a carefully planned and skillfully executed deception.

If you are skeptical of (or even incensed by) this statement we do not blame you. We are not asking you to take our word for it, nor do we want you to do that. We want you to view the evidence and see with your own eyes that this is the case. We want you to hear it directly from the eyewitnesses who were there, just as we did.

Please understand that this information is not being brought to your attention simply for educational purposes. It is presented within the context of a “call to action” accompanied by a detailed step-by-step strategy intended to inspire and empower you to do something about it. But first, please familiarize yourself with the evidence by viewing and paying close attention to the 81-minute video presentation, National Security Alert [2]

Thank you for your concern and thank you for your action.

Sincerely,

Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis

Citizen Investigation Team [3]

Hommedespoir (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)hommedespoir 7 May 2011

The assertions of CIT (such as the notion that a plane did not hit the building) have been overwhelmingly rejected by the 9/11 Truth movement. Mainstream media and government are also unlikely to grant it any credence. With little notability, and little support from any sector, I don't see how it could merit coverage in this article. Wildbear (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank goodness the TRUTHERS are on top of this matter! Are the TRUTHERS united on most things regarding this matter, meaning, they aren't the OTHERS that are convinced a missle hit the Pentagon, right?--MONGO 08:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no doubt some people around who still cling to the idea that a missle hit the Pentagon, or that the plane flew over instead of hitting. Those ideas are not well supported by the evidence, and have been largely rejected by those who take a careful evidence and research based approach.(ref)(ref)(ref) Wildbear (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it still being widely held as fact that Hani Hanjour piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, if it was indeed AA Flight 77? Hanjour could barely pilot a single engine Cessna barely a month earlier, yet we're supposed to believe he could execute a 330-degree turn with military precision and nose down in a Boeing 757 and crash into one of the most guarded structures in the United States. Just doesn't make sense..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.45.225 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe some of your assumptions are incorrect? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
The article reflects the widely held point of view according to reliable sources, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. We can't answer your question, except to observe that after ten years, 9/11-related conspiracy theories have never gained much traction in the press and in society at large. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Phonecalls

In the beginning of the article, phonecalls from passagers in the plane is mentioned. Could someone add a "source needed"-template for that? Thank you. 193.235.138.40 (talk) 10:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources are provided in the body of the article: the lead paragraphs are not referenced per the manual of style, since they're summaries of the referenced text. Acroterion (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dead Link for Video

I searched the wayback machine and found the 2 videos which are no longer hosted on the site referenced. Can someone replace the rotten link? Video 2 is the one that was embedded. (I'm not sure how to do this and I don't want to run through an unnecessary number of page edits trying to get it right...). Video 1: http://web.archive.org/web/20090212100904/http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-1.mpg Video 2: http://web.archive.org/web/20090212100831/http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/flight77-2.mpg Ahp378 (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

True Target White House?

I heard someone mention once that this plane was originally supposed to hit the white house. When they couldn't find it, they decided to go after the pentagon instead. I do not know if this is true or not and have no way of backing up this claim. Does anyone if it is true?

216.138.51.95 (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There has been speculation on that subject for Flight 93, the plane that came down in Pennsylvania, that its target was either the White House or the Capitol. However, Flight 77 almost certainly targeted the Pentagon from the start, since it flew straight in from the west and didn't go looking for the White House. Flight 93 is usually assumed to have been heading for the Capitol, as it made an easier target than the White House. There is no clear documentation in either case. Acroterion (talk) 19:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracies,

etc. Why isn't there a section for this? It appears from the discussion above that there once was. Basket Feudalist 15:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Why should there be conspiracy sections for the individual flights? Conspiracy theories relating to Flight 77 are considered fringe theories even by the conspiracy theorists. See WP:ONEWAY and WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)#
Is 9/11 significant enough to be worth arguing about...?! Anyway as long as you have WP:RS for that statement. It just seems odd that it has no reference whatsoever. Implication being: they do not exist. Very odd! Basket Feudalist 15:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of the policies you cite. Unfortunately they only apply in so far as (for example) they would to the article on the eastern front not mentioning Katyn!!! Basket Feudalist 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Was the Katyn massacre really a conspiracy theory promoted on the Internet by conspiracy enthusiasts? I had no idea. Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Trés drole. But I liked the ' Earth has no Flat Earth section' comparison above... Basket Feudalist 16:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

'Cockpit voice recorder' section.

This section appears to be contradictory. Compare:

the black boxes aboard their destroyed aircraft were modern solid-state versions, which are more resistant to damage than the older magnetic tape recorders.

With:

In its report on the CVR, the NTSB identified the unit as an L-3 Communications, Fairchild Aviation Recorders model A-100A cockpit voice recorder; a device which records on magnetic tape.

Which statement is correct? BTW. 'CVR' needs to be explained / linked- there are no other ref's to it in this article so it is WP:TECHNICAL. Basket Feudalist 15:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The section has not been fixed yet. It first talks of solid-state CVR from which a download occurred, then of a blank tape, then of a charred and unusable tape, as described in the given source. I suggest to remove the incorrect, premature statements, but at least rephrase them so that it is apparent to the reader that they were only statements to the public. --Mopskatze (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I just read the same thing, I am going to remove the CBS News early report that the tape was erased. That will leave the statement that it was melted and unusable. Someone should remove "solid state" since it appears to use a digital magnetic tape. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I changed the definitions to "solid state" for the fdr and "magnetic tape" for the cvr per the NTSB report. The early speculation was before the boxes were opened. The section had a mix of early speculation and NTSB report information which was contradictory. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Military helicopter destroyed in crash

According to 'p85 of Destination disaster by Andrew Brookes (ISBN 0 7110 2862 1), a military helicopter on the helipad at the Pentagon was destroyed by the crashing aircraft. Unfortunately no serial number is given. Is there anyone who can add this info to the article? Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Thierry Meyssan, L'Effroyable imposture, 2002,
  2. ^ http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/nsa.html
  3. ^ http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_77/Archive_2&oldid=1142752119"