Talk:United Airlines Flight 93/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Whisperer in the CeeCee Lyles' audio

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

No mention of Delta 89?

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

Nationalities

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

http://www.honorflight93.org/remember/?fa=passengers-crew

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks#United_Airlines_Flight_93 Beingsshepherd (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Thanks. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Congressional Gold Medal

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

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

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

Truther Nuts

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

No reason whatsoever to pay attention to those nuts....here. But we do in articles dedicated to those conspiracy theories.--MONGO 12:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with MONGO's comments. We often have to fight them off from the factual articles about 9/11. David J Johnson (talk) 12:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

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

RfC notice

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

Removal of 9/11 Conclusion

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

Farmer is a primary source and the only source used to support the section. Have these issues been printed elsewhere like another peer reviewed book?--MONGO 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

New York Times Article backs the book. He was the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 commission are you calling him a liar or that the 9/11 commission was lying? As outlined in the book the 9/11 commission all confirmed what he printed in his book-- Esemono (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The NYT piece is a review of Farmer's book...it doesn't back the book, it just reviews it. I'll look at the 9/11 Commissions transcripts.--MONGO 02:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that you own this article but Farmer is the 9/11 commission he was the Senior Counsel. So you're accusing him of lying? I thought wikipedia was about sources and facts not what you "smell" not what you want to censor because of a hunch-- Esemono (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not own any articles. Farmer was not on the Commission and I have yet to read all the sections from the Commissions report that pertain to this matter if any do. I will read through it by tomorrow.--MONGO 03:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know what to call you, the bossman, Senior Admin, he-who-controls-this-page. Maybe I can help you with your original research. The times that were changed on Sept 17, 2001, the times Farmer refers to (you know the Senior Counsel to the 9/11 commission) are 9:24 and 9:34. Hope that helps. -- Esemono (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The article in the NYT, by Farmer and others, is from the Opinion section, so Farmer is the only source for this. I'm not prepared to take one author at his word here. This is something that needs to be investigated by historians, weighing all the information. Also, there's a blp problem with calling the fighter pilot a liar. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That's where I sit on the issue as well....a secondary source would be helpful, one performed in an investigative fashion and with the same conclusions would make it all factual.--MONGO 15:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree withTom Harrison and MONGO's comments above. We cannot rely on just one source. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Here is an NPR article that show the correct timeline. We know from public record that after the September 17, 2001 White House briefing the times were changed as Paul Wolfowitz and then Vice President Cheney on Sept 17, 2001 on an appearance on Meet the Press cited the changed timeline. -- Esemono (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Three Mile Island as potential target

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

Does it just mention that TMI was in the flight path, or discuss it as an intended target? The TMI angle was mentioned at the time I think, but I believe the sources concerning intent have always focused on Washington. I wouldn't say that TMI and the White House/Capitol recieved equivalent levels of speculation, the balance has always been tipped toward Washington. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

KSM did mention that nuclear power plants were considered but rejected due to a concern that the American response might be out of control. He and OBL both underestimated the response anyway but neither thought the plane impacts would result in the twin towers at the WTC collapsing.--MONGO 13:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

KSM also said the target of Flight 93 was strictly Capitol Hill. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

How many passengers?

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bergen.com/news/2pacrash200109123.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Shortcuts

There are two places where the term "plz" instead of "please" are used, as well as one instance of mssg: Under boarding, :"Ed, confirm latest mssg plz —Jason": Under Hijacking: "Heard report of incident. Plz confirm all is normal."

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.58.212 (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

• Those are direct quotes and are correct. The messages were sent via the ACARS system. Shorthand is common. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090123143601/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/18/inv.hamburg.suspects/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/09/18/inv.hamburg.suspects/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090123143413/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/inv.fbi.gym/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/19/inv.fbi.gym/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110812073107/http://www.archives.gov:80/research/9-11/staff-report.pdf to http://www.archives.gov/research/9-11/staff-report.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

USS Somerset (LPD-25)

I don't know if this should go in the section under Memorials, but this ship was named in honor of the heroes of Flight 93. http://40.media.tumblr.com/30de9ae506ef096e477ba7a5b3bf04f6/tumblr_ngosr0ijft1rrhyqfo1_1280.jpg photo] If you go to Google Images and type in "uss somerset (LPD 25)" and "flight 93" you'll see what I mean. Zyxwv99 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably but it would need to be explained as the link between "Somerset" and UAL93 would not be obvious to nearly all our readers. MilborneOne (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I assumed some explanation would be required. I just wasn't sure if it counted as a memorial by this article's definition. Zyxwv99 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090330094324/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/US/09/16/inv.family.suspect/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.family.suspect/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080522050524/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/US/09/12/family.reacts/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/family.reacts/index.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:44, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6LAVEpJ9L to http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727095710/http://names.911memorial.org/#lang=en_US&page=about&id=7 to http://names.911memorial.org/#lang=en_US&page=about&id=7
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/04/12/flight93.transcript.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Cell Phones

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

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

two cell phone calls form FLigh93 at altitude of one mile

possible and who is the other idiot saying otherwise! 75.163.160.132 (talk) 05:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Dick Cheney quote

I have added a sentence containing a frequently-cited comment by Vice President Dick Cheney. I think I put it in a place that makes sense with the flow of the article. Please review my edit and its reference, and change it or relocate it as you see fit. RogerD (talk) 09:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

"Saeed"

I am pointing out that the cockpit voice recorder indicated that there were at least two hijackers in the cockpit. Jarrah was heard calling the other hijacker,"Saeed", which would mean Saeed al-Ghamdi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.214.234 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Dahl and Homer

The CVR transcript suggests the pilots may have fought back (besides sending out a mayday call) and were possibly even alive after the hijacking. The CVR transcript says at least one pilot was alive; he was heard moaning - At 9:45:25 a pilot is asked for. At 9:53:35 he is forced to look out the window. They probably kept one alive in case they needed help with the airplane. (For example, when they wanted the oxygen turned off). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.104.210 (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of recent edit

I found a recent edit to (apparently) improve this article. Therefore, I was somewhat surprised to find it reverted. It appears to me that some parts of the edit might be tenuous, while others should stand. I hope that the two editors involved can discuss this edit and arrive at a consensus over what stays and what goes. I myself have no expertise in this subject area.--Quisqualis (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The IP who made the "edits" is a long term block evader, who seems to delight in adding uncited and speculative content. There is no need to seek consensus, as the IP has been blocked - yet again. David J Johnson (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonsensical, not footnoted

"Families and friends of the passengers believe, given their words by phone before the crash, that the passengers meant to crash the craft rather than allow it to reach its target."

Really? "Families and friends of the passengers" think that the passengers tried to get into the cockpit, get control of the plane—and crash it? Well, then, those families and friends must be pretty stupid. Had the passengers somehow gained control of the plane, why would they have crashed it?

The sentence, which is at the end of the introduction's penultimate paragraph, is nonsensical and not footnoted. I will delete it.98.114.58.231 (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

The truth is, as shown by sources, is that the hijackers decided to crash the plane rather than cede control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.16.173 (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tribune-democrat.com/local/x1095936052/Flight-93-crash-site-video-surfaces
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://names.911memorial.org/
• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20010913051614/http://www.ual.com/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20010911230658/http://www.ual.com/ on http://www.ual.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ual.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Replaced archive link https://archive.is/20010913051614/http://www.ual.com/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20010911230658/http://www.ual.com/ on http://www.ual.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Replaced archive link https://archive.is/20010911230658/http://www.ual.com/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20010911230658/http://www.ual.com/ on http://www.ual.com/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Captive Flight Attendant in Cockpit

According to the 9/11 commission, Deborah Welsh and Wanda Green worked in First Class, with the other 3 in Coach. The woman heard struggling in the cockpit was most likely a flight attendant, and most researchers have just presumed it was Deborah Welsh, the Lead Flight Attendant on the flight.

How do we know if it was Welsh. It could've been Lorraine Bay or Wanda Green (Bay was to assist in First Class after breakfast if needed). None of these attendants are known to have called the ground.

Does anyone know if the woman has been identified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cd2003 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Read the "hijacking section of the article. The identity can only be speculation. David J Johnson (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Pull it up."

In the last paragraph under "United_Airlines_Flight_93#Passenger_revolt", the article as of 9/11/17 12:43p EDT says

"— and that the final spoken words on the recorder seemed to be an inexplicably calm voice in English instructing, "Pull it up.""

It cites a fox news article claiming these to be the final words in the recording. However a simple search from other news sites regarding the transcript, and even Wikipedia's own account of the transcript at https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Flight_93_Cockpit_Transcript do not note the presence of a voice that clearly says 'pull it up.' as the final words on the tape.

This one Fox news article with emotional tethers is the only article to report this, and all others do not corroborate it. I think that this information should be removed from the Wikipedia article as it is questionable that it is legitimate. Leaving it in there could cause readers to infer things from events that more sources indicate did not happen.

It was apparently added: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_93&diff=prev&oldid=792602801

Please review.

HopeICanHelp (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

No it should not be removed. The reference(s) are quite clear: Fox News and Associated Press, both of which are reliable sources. The purported statement is in the background and not clear on the pilot's mike. David J Johnson (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The FOX News article and a CBS article are identical except for one sentence. The FOX article is actually a reprint of an AP article... so I think it is beyond fair to say that these all come from the same source, probably a press release from someone or an organization. It is not really corroborating information. I'll link articles that depict events differently soon. HopeICanHelp (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• CBC News article noting that the statement in question was yelled by someone, and was not the final statement heard on the recording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HopeICanHelp (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061118135044/http://www.cleveland.com/terrorism/index.ssf?%2Fterrorism%2Fmore%2F100028703529429109.html to http://www.cleveland.com/terrorism/index.ssf?%2Fterrorism%2Fmore%2F100028703529429109.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911011058/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_90823.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080708190917/http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_575608.html to http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_575608.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130727095710/http://names.911memorial.org/ to http://names.911memorial.org/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:15, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Airlines Flight 93. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714221640/http://www.wthr.com/story/6646237/to-honor-911-heroes-governor-rendell-signs-bill-designating-somerset-county-road-flight-93-memorial-highway to http://www.wthr.com/story/6646237/to-honor-911-heroes-governor-rendell-signs-bill-designating-somerset-county-road-flight-93-memorial-highway

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:24, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a correction via Colonel Pat Tillman

Tillman, during a speech in 2015 revealed that President Bush was asked to give the order to shoot down flight 93. According to Tillman's statement during this speech, Bush refused to give the order to shoot down a plane carrying American passengers, and instead waited for those passengers to make their move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:41A:DD00:90BD:F4EE:3CD3:BC5B (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Death of Homer

Now, and for the last time. Somebody keeps modifying the section about Homer's fate when United 93 was hijacked. This or these people, in the effort to make 'official' the cinematographic image of Homer opening the door and being stabbed by the hijackers and that Captain Dahl being the one who shouted "mayday", keep repeating like parrots, sources that don't even talk about such a thing, while they kept cancelling all the more reliable sources from other observations- including the testimony of Homer's wife Melodie, not one of the thousands of far-fetched accounts given by sources like "9-11 America Under Attack" - that Homer was the person who shouted "mayday" on the cockpit voice recorder, and possibly was even alive after the hijacking (notice: I say possibly, and indeed I wrote in the article that Homer's actions are just what his wife believes, while these people use no actual sources and fictional books as facts). They deem all these accounts, including a testimony of Homer's wife, as "untrue", while the only certainly apocryphal accounts are those of Homer just being killed or that he and Dahl was removed from the cockpit and left in the back of the plane. And if we want to remain in theme of apocryphal accounts, let's talk about the sources (like "9-11 America Under Attack"), to which they desperately cling: it is a book that is completely inaccurate and fictional, that it is worse than any of the conspiracy theories that came in the wake of the tragedy. If you were to click on that source - you would agree it is not needed. Moreover, the other sources (the telegraph and ABC accounts) never mention a word that Homer was stabbed and killed during the hijacking: One more unjustified modify to that section and I will notify them for vandalism. Excuse me for being so rude but this has been repeated for nearly a month and without those people ever making a justification or asking anything, just erasing everything goes against what they state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.134.75 (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The same discussion is on Homer's page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.134.75 (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The opinion of the deceased pilots wife is just an opinion. This is a featured level article that has undergone a peer review as well as a featured article review. We can look at your information but for now I'm reverting your changes.--MONGO 11:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the de facto banned UK Kennedy/Lincoln/Titanic IP, who's been more active recently. I've blocked the IP. Acroterion (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

The person who continues to write in the text with affirmative language that the pilots were alive and somehow trying to interfere have one source, and the article clearly states the account is the "opinion" of the widow of one of the wives. It is not "testimony", a word which implies legal veracity. It seems there is a dogged POV agenda on this that shows through, someone is desperate to affirm something that no source confirms other than the opinion of a person who was not on the plane or in the cockpit, and relies on audio she heard in which officials who played the audio cannot verify which moans or statements were referring to among the three persons being attacked by the hijackers: the two pilots and FA Walsh. Reading the source transcript of the CVR, one can easily also surmise "sit down! sit down! down! down! down!" is being directed at Walsh, who was speaking clearly and pleading for her life during that time. The editor of the current text is using definitive language to say it refers to a pilot, this is very POV even if one considers the source. Why does this continue to haunt this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.194.60 (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of the truth, it is worth remembering the comment made at 9:45:25 on the https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Flight_93_Cockpit_Transcript, in which Jarrah said to another hijacker, “Inform them, and tell him to talk to the pilot; bring the pilot back”. While it doesn’t really prove or disprove anything, it does show that the hijackers themselves seem to believe that at least one of the pilots was still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.234.202 (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary comment by IP, who cannot even sign their contribution! I see no reason why this has to be brought-up again, considering the discussion above. David J Johnson (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

RE: Infobox Image

Is it possible that the images can be swapped around, so it is actually the aircraft in the infobox? I mean with the vast majority of air accidents even if they are hijackings, it is always the aircraft in the infobox, not the map. I mean no disrespect to 9/11. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I know where you can ask that question: See Wikipedia:Help desk. The person who should not be named (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the aircraft into the infobox, the diagram appears to be unreferenced and home made so not really suitable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the map is not referenced, but all the other 9/11 attacks show the map on the infobox which are not referenced either. The person who should not be named (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The Mayday call by Homer

This is what I hear:

Mayday!

(Women) Oh my god!

Hey!

Mayday! Mayday! [Unintelligable]

(Second mayday call)

Mayday! Mayday!

Get out of here!

Mayday! We’re going to die here!

(Man) AH!

I know this seems like WP:SYNTHESIS, but there are different sources that includes both mayday calls and some transcripts don’t show the same thing as another. The person who should not be named (talk) 17:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Please reply The person who should not be named (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

We go by what the reliable written references are. I cant understand most of those soundbites as to what exactly is being said.--MONGO (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Just read what it says and listen to the recording at the same time. The person who should not be named (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Creating a page on Jason Dahl

As the first officer had his own page dedicated towards him, shall we create one about Jason Dahl? OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It’s a redirect The person who should not be named (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"UL 93" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UL 93. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Should we put in the following link?

I wonder if we should put in this link which is Flight 93 CVR Transcript under United Airlines Flight 93#External links. I mean, it seems to have lots of detail about the CVR Transcript and a better understanding of what happened and who spoke it. The original transcript has only the time, and the sentence, not the speaker, nor sound effects. No offense or anything, this is just an idea. Signed by The person who should not be named (talk) 11:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

No I don't think this adds anything to what we already know, plus we already have the transcript on the CNN site. David J Johnson (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

How would the pilots know...?

The article says: "Dahl and Homer took actions to interfere with the hijackers, including disengaging the autopilot just before the hijackers took over in order to prevent them from aiming the plane at Washington, D.C.". How would they know what was the hijackers' intended target?

They didn’t know what there intended target was. Plus, it’s unknown what actually happened in the cockpit or how the hijackers got in the cockpit since the hijacking was not recorded by the cockpit voice recorder. But it is clear that they knew the hijackers were going to fly it into either New York or Washington or someplace else, since the pilots received from the ACARS message: “Beware any cockpit intrusion, 2 Aircraft in New York hit the World Trade Center”. The person who should not be named (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Edited accordingly. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

How many hijackers in the cockpit?

Is it known how many hijackers were in the cockpit? One of the movies seems to suggest three and another one seems to suggest two. Heymid (contribs) 10:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Heymid: At least 2 were in the cockpit. I have listened to the Voice Recording and it may have sounded like there maybe were 3 but I don’t know. The person who should not be named (talk) 13:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Sense

In the article it states the following: "The airplane rolled upside down, and one of the hijackers began shouting the takbir. Among the continued sounds of the passenger counterattack". Firstly, the paragraph implies earlier that the aircraft was in a nose dive. From this sentence the aircraft appears to have been in an inverted nose dive. Yet the text says the passenger revolt continued. How exactly? An inverted nose dive would have kept them off their balance at the very least. The only advantage to the passengers is that the attitude of the aircraft propelled them forward toward the cockpit. I'm wondering how they were in any condition to carry on. 194.33.192.46 (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We need reliable sources that back up this argument. As this is a featured level article it has undergone a peer review and a featured article review before it was promoted to the featured level.--MONGO (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Its not an argument its a question. The information in the article tells us the revolt continued despite the aircraft being in an inverted nose dive. That requires clarity. Sources don't come into it. If it can't be clarified this shouldn't be a featured article. At present the article doesn't make sense. 194.33.196.5 (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

All I know is that the cockpit voice recorders captured sounds of what appear to be the passengers continuing to attempt to retake control of the aircraft right up to the moment it impacted.--MONGO (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

It may be this article is badly worded and needs to be changed. One FBI interviewee stated it was entirely possible those sounds were made by people thrown up again the cabin door/bulkhead during the dive. Have a look at this, part the the FBI investigation here. It is worth noting that the FBI do not accept the passengers broke through into the cockpit. That final voice was likely one of the pilots, said to be in the cockpit for the duration of the flight. 194.33.196.3 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have looked at the flight data recorder animation (See link here) and it shows that the plane was in a nosedive before it inverted and by listening to the Cockpit Voice Recording the passengers were in the cockpit before it inverted so. I’m not sure. The person who should not be named (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Could that help? The person who should not be named (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Key points that remain unaddressed on UA Flt. 93 that seem unusual.

A couple of things stand out that I may have missed but believe to be odd/still unaddressed:

1) there were only 37 passengers on board this UA flight from NJ to LA on a Boeing 757 that normally had a capacity of approx 200 passengers (there's reference to it being a 757-222 which may have even more seats)...but that's more than 80 per cent of seats unfilled or practically an empty jet.

2) Even though this flight 93 was light load-wise (as noted above), this 757 still had to be carrying significant fuel to fly from the US east coast to west coast - yet there was NO major jet fuel fire /smoke mentioned from the PA crash site...meanwhile, the narrative on the 2 jets that hit NYC's WTC was that the abundant jet fuel from those jets was a major contributor to the fires/heavy damage inflicted on the WTC towers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PalmerJW (talk • contribs)

@PalmerJW: Read the Crash section, second paragraph: "There was a great explosion and you could see the flames. It was a massive, massive explosion. Flames and then smoke and then a massive, massive mushroom cloud." More of the same in that paragraph.Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 09:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

All of the planes on 9/11 were lightly loaded first-flight-of-the-day flights, specifically chosen by the hijackers for that reason to ensure that their teams would face less opposition. As with any plane in airline service, these flights were the first in a series of flights through the day, and will fly whether they're loaded or not so the rest of their schedule can be completed. And as noted in this flight and the others, there were significant fires - this one hit a field at high speed and had little scope for a sustained fire. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

First passenger killed

Did you know that Mark Rothenberg was the first person killed on flight 93? Zachbarbo (talk) 17:27, May 29, 2021 (UTC)

Source for that? Acroterion (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I heard it from numerous documentaries and movies. Zachbarbo (talk) 16:58, June 1, 2021 (UTC)

Can you name which specific ones they are? Nightscream (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

From what I gather, the documentary in question is “The Flight That Fought Back”, whose narrator states “it is believed Mickey’ Rothenberg is the first person attacked”. In his book “Among the Heroes,” which I added a NBC link to, Jere Longman writes about Rothenberg being the possible victim, and it is elaborated on in Tom McMillan’s book “Flight 93: The Story, the Aftermath, and the Legacy of American Courage on 9/11”. I tried to add a link to pages 153 or 154, but it caused a problem so I wrote the words instead, so that someone might be able to find it and link it instead.86.8.200.101 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Hostages in the cockpit

In reading various articles on Flight 93, it appears that those who listened to the plane's cockpit voice recorder took down statements and pleas by "two" native English speaking people who weren't hijackers, a man and a woman. The presence of hostages in the cockpit could be discerned at first from a stream of harsh commands Jarrah issued in English after his "Here the captain" announcement. Before the woman's voice was heard, and as the commands started, a male voice pleads "No more," several times. In the "Washington Post's account of the recording at the trial"., this comment is attributed to a "victim", indicating the voice was American. This, as well as moaning that was said to be heard, indicates that a pilot (some, including the late Sandy Dahl (Jason Dahl's wife) and David Dosch (a friend of Jason), believing it to be Capitan Dahl, possibly repeatedly disabling the plane's autopilot feature to attempt to foil the hijackers), was alive in the cockpit and refused to follow Jarrah's commands to "sit down." The belief by Sandy Dahl was included as far back as 2015 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_93&oldid=644554398) but has been omitted over the course of several edits about a year back, apparently by accident, and thus only the later comment is included, "Dahl seemingly continued to moan and fight Jarrah over the controls, repeatedly disengaging the autopilot, as at 09:40, there were horn sounds that indicating the hijackers were repeatedly having trouble with the autopilot and were fiddling with a green knob." Along with bringing the initial paragraph back, so that the later comment doesn't seem to come out of nowhere (like I said, deleting the first comment about this, would confuse readers on where the "moaning" was first heard), I am changing the words slightly so it can make more sense, notably changing the word "indicating" to "indicated" instead.86.8.200.101 (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you've done on this. I don't have time to check the sources you cited to ensure that they support your additions; I just made a minor copyedit on a space that violated WP:PAIC. Perhaps someone else can check the text to make sure it's source-accurate. Nightscream (talk) 21:40, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

“cofirm”

According to the Commission Four Flights Monograph, the response to Ed’s about possible cockpit invasion was written as “cofirm” than “confirm”. I’m writing to reflect this as it is written in the monograph.86.8.200.101 (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

CVR partially released

Not many people seem to know, but some portions of the CVR were released for the 15th anniversary. I have added a link to an FBI website where the tape is played. I don’t know if any other source for it exists. I also specify what parts were played.213.104.124.144 (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop interpreting and analyzing primary sources. It's a violation of WP:No original research. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I second that...while NIST and other government sources can be used directly as they are public domain, we try to avoid using primary sources.--MONGO (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with comments by Binksternet and MONGO. David J Johnson (talk) 12:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

“Mayday!”

Much interpretation has been made of the two brief mayday calls. Melody Homer wrote in her book that she recognised her husband voice as giving the call, as she and Sandy Dahl listened to both the mayday recording and the CVR recording to see if they could recognise their husbands’ voices. Some people have claimed to have heard a woman crying out, “Oh My God!” on the first call, or men shouting, “Stop it!” or “We’re are all going to die here!” On the audio of the second recording on the page, the subtitles are written as though ”we all gonna die here!” is actually being said. So in order to clear up these interpretations, I am using the NTSB Flight Path Study, United Flight 93, from February 19, 2002, and the Four Flights Monograph which detail the words and Werth’s actions. Although the NTSB report lists only one “Mayday,” the April 12, 2006 New York Times account of the voice recording played at the Moussaoui trial indicated the word was repeated three times, which is standard practice among pilots and boat captains, to be sure the emergency is clearly communicated.86.8.201.86 (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The NTSB report should not be cited directly, in my opinion. The better route is to follow the WP:SECONDARY guideline and cite analysis by secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the words “purposely keyed the microphone so sounds of the struggle would be heard by officials on the ground” as it is copied directly from Tom McMillan’s book. 213.104.124.144 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but you introduced plagiarized wording from that same source and failed to attribute it.--MONGO (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Beamer’s exact words

Removing the sentence “Beamer told Jefferson the group was planning to "jump on" the hijackers and fly the plane into the ground before the hijackers' plan could be followed through”, Beamer as quoted by Jefferson in the Guardian article said that he ”thinking about jumping the guy with the bomb”, with no mention of crashing the plane of their own accord. Regardless of the outcome, the passengers in the calls, said they were trying to retake the plane and save their own lives. They had lots to live for.80.43.197.240 (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Paragraphs and section headers

Since the FA promotion in 2008, additional good text & sources have expanded this article. Some organizational work was needed, to accommodate the additions, so I introduced paragraph breaks for overly long paragraphs and additional section headers.

• Divided "Flight" 2.0 into "Boarding" 2.1 and "Hijack warnings issued" 2.2. (Should this be Hijack or Hijacking?)
• "Hijacking", "Passenger revolt" and "Crash"....each topic needs its own major section, in the Contents box, IMO.
• Divided "Hijacking" into "Cockpit transmissions and recordings" and "Passenger and crew phone calls".

The edit warning box said "It is requested that you discuss significant changes of text..." and although I haven't changed text, I wish to explain the edits. I hope other editors will approve and improve as needed. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 07:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Burnett’s words

Regarding the transcript, this is the passage in question that shows that Burnett said they were retaking the plane, which I have copied and pasted here from the source:

We’re waiting until we’re over a rural area. We’re going to take back the airplane.

80.43.197.240 (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

That source is not a reliable source. It is just a webpage not peer reviewed nor compliant with what we use especially in a Featured Article.--MONGO (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with MONGO's comments above. Certainly not a reliable source, peer reviewed or complying with Wikipedia conventions. This IP keeps making major changes to 9/11 articles without referring to the Talk Page. Perhaps they should consider opening an account? David J Johnson (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Britton and Wainio

Tom McMillan’s book and other sources say that it was Britton who handed the phone to Wainio, not Grandcolas as originally thought. The Paul Greengrass film even depicts this as it is actually said to have happened.80.43.197.240 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

As seen on the page notes, This might have been because their original ticked seats on the flight were in the same row-Lauren in 11D and Elizabeth in 11F. However, the passengers had been moved by the hijackers to the back of the plane. The DOJ briefing of phone calls determined that Grandcolas made her calls from row 23 D-E-F. Both Britton and Wainio called from the Airfone in row 33 A-B-C. Wainio's call began less than a minute after Britton's ended. It would have been Britton who handed the phone to Wainio.80.43.197.240 (talk)

Rerouting radio frequency

In the article, “Flight 93 Pilot's Wife Recalls Terror of Recording”; Now, it's become clear, since she's spoke up (after having to keep silent) that, indeed...since she DID hear the actual recording, she has a better mental image of what may have been happening in the cockpit. She is aided by her experience as an F/A, and familiarity with airline procedures, and cockpit layout --- the "floor plan".

What I've inferred, from her accounts, is that she believed her husband, though mortally wounded, was barely consicious. Contrary to her belief the autopilot was disengaging, she (Mrs. Dahl) may not have seen the NTSB report of the autopilot activity, throughout the time after the hijacking was undertaken.

The hijacking pilots DID know how to operate the A/P. Still , can't fault a grieving widow for minor mistakes like that. Sandy Dahl said, she thought her husband "squawked the emergency frequency" during the ordeal. The term "squawked", for pilots, is specifc to the transponder. I do not recall any reports of the "emergency" transponder code being received from UAL 93's xponder. She exhibits her confusion here:

“When one of the hijackers announced there was a bomb on board and everyone should stay seated because they were returning to the airport, Dahl's maneuver enabled the message to go the air traffic control towers and not to the passengers.”

As is the case with at least AAL 11, this probably occurred because of the hijackers' mistaking the normal ATC hand mic for a PA mic. (This would make sense if they spent some time on older Boeings, like the 737, and even the 727. Those DO have a dedicated hand mic for the PA, mounted on the rear of the center pedestal).

OK...not intending to impeach Mrs. Dahl here...just showing how her rather (in the above cases) ill-informed comments aren't technically accurate.80.43.197.240 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

"rerouting the plane's radio frequency" is actually a nonsense statement. MilborneOne (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggested edit to the lead

I have a suggested textual edit to the lead; given the significance of this Featured Article, and the specialised knowledge involved, I don't want to make the edit myself, but simply propose it for editors who know more about the subject matter.

The proposed change is to the opening line of the third paragraph in the lead: "After the hijackers took control of the plane, the pilots may have taken measures such as de-activating the autopilot to hinder the hijackers." That reads oddly to me: if the hijackers were in control of the plane, how could the pilots have taken measures, especially if the pilots were badly injured, as the article seems to suggest later on?

Would this wording be better? "While the hijackers were taking control of the plane, the pilots may have taken measures such as de-activating the autopilot to hinder the hijackers." I think it fits the timeline better, but again, defer to editors with more knowledge. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, I think you should Be Bold, and make your edit, with "see talk" in the summary. See what others think, probably faster than waiting for Talk replies. Worst case, you are reverted. The entire "control of the plane" issue is the most compelling aspect of Flight 93. Hijackers never had complete control, pilots, crew & passengers fought them and succeeded in subverting the hijacker's goal. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 19:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I will do so. Especially with this anniversary, I want to be respectful to their memories. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, yes, you/we are working with a good heart, to honor the extraordinarily brave & determined crew and passengers. Thanks for editing well. Best, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 20:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Fake transcript

There is a purported transcript of Todd Beamer's phone call circulating on social media, but it appears to be fake. It is unsourced everywhere it appears, and contradicts information given at https://www.nps.gov/flni/learn/historyculture/phone-calls-from-flight-93.htm . We will need to be vigilant for attempts to add it to this article and the Todd Beamer article without a reliable source (while bearing in mind that most attempts will probably be made in good faith). Richard75 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed "deliberately crashed into a field"

Hello I think we should change the sentence regarding the plane's crash to make it clear that it is not known for sure whether the hijackers deliberately crashed the flight or whether it crashed due to the passengers fighting with Jarrah for the controls, or varying combinations of both. This ambiguity is highlighted in the flight cockpit recordings (For example, at 10:02:33, Jarrah was recorded repeatedly screaming "Give it to me!", possibly referring to the yoke of the aircraft). I think we should also mention that it also possible that the passengers severely maimed, or possibly even killed, perhaps two of the hijackers. Many families of the victims who have listened to the CVR believe this- obviously we can never know for sure but it would be worth mentioning.--Aubernas (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Fighter Jet Response

This section seems contradictory;

It first mentions that two fighter jets were scrambled to intercept Flight 93, but in the next section it states that it was unknown at the time in DC that Flight 93 had been hijacked and that no orders had been given to intercept it. Elsewhere the 9/11 commission have repeatedly stated that it was unknown that it was hijacked by authorities in DC (or central authorities in general), and that no orders to intercept or shoot it down had been given.

e.g. from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14farmer.html -

archived link inserted by Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

"After 9/11, military and government officials undertook an aggressive public relations effort. In testimony before Congress and the 9/11 commission, in numerous interviews, and in an official Air Force history, these officials told the country that by the time United 93 turned toward Washington, President Bush had issued the shoot-down authorization, Vice President Dick Cheney had passed it on, fighters were standing by over Washington and, as the military’s commander at the Northeast Air Defense Sector headquarters in Rome, N.Y., told ABC News of the authorization to shoot down the planes: “We of course passed it on to the pilots. United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington.”

Yet the commission established that none of this happened. Once we subpoenaed the relevant tapes and other records, the story fell apart. Contrary to the testimony of retired Gen. Larry Arnold, who on 9/11 was the commander of continental defense for the North American Aerospace Defense Command, fighters were not scrambled that morning to meet the threat posed by United 93. In fact, the fighters were sent up in response to an unrelated and mistaken report that General Arnold and others had not disclosed to the commission. Flight 93 hadn’t even been hijacked when the planes were ordered scrambled, and General Arnold’s command found out the plane was hijacked only after it had crashed. The authorization to shoot it down came after it had crashed, and was never passed on to the pilots."

While there are plenty of media sources recountinmg Heather Penney's story, it seems to be pretty definitive that it's as embellished as the previously mentioned Billy Hutchison - is it fair to keep it in the article? 109.255.132.38 (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This is a good question, what do others think? It seems we should frame this the way we have done the Hutchinson story. I inserted an archived link above. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 15:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

While looking into the details of the fighter jets, I stumbled across Billy Hutchinson's LinkedIn (last updated 2016 or later), where he still claims on it that he was flying at the time of the attack. Perhaps the details there can help on resolving that situation? I also happened to listen to some ATC reports from the day in this YouTube video (though some are out of out order) which may help point to independent transcripts that can further confirm/refute the claims/challenges? Just thought that might be useful to working out the timing/truth further, seeing it's still an active discussion.

JeopardyTempest (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Billy Hutchinson was on a training mission to the Air Force Dare range that morning with a couple of other pilots, not Sasseville or Penney though. The three pilots were on their way back around 1015. I believe Billy Hutchinson landed and was told to take off again since he still had fuel and bullets remaining, I don't think the other pilots with him had enough fuel or bullets to accompany him. He took off at 10:38, well after United 93 crashed, and after the projected time it would have reached Washington. The Andrews pilots were receiving mis-information from the Secret Service who were telling them that United 93 was hijacked and they thought was still on its way to Washington. The timeline that the Secret Service was using was way off, and they thought it was flying along the Potomac river. I think the aircraft flying along the river ended up being a helicopter. Sasseville and Penney were acting on the same mis-information provided by the Secret Service and took off a few minutes after Billy Hutchinson. All three believed at the the time that there was a real threat and that they would have to use bullets (Hutchinson), or Kamakaze (Sasseville and Penney) to stop United 93. According to the 9/11 Commission, none of the 3 would have ever had a chance of intercepting United 93 since they took off well after United 93 would have reached Washington. There were armed F-16s over Washington that had scrambled out of Langley, but due to the confusion and dis-array it is doubtful that they would have stopped United 93, according to the 9/11 report.FullMoonCity (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

Add the following sentence after the first paragraph under "Fighter jet response":

"The 9/11 Commission later determined that United 93 would have likely reached Washington at least 15 minutes prior to Sasseville and Penney taking off."

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference pages 44-45 of the 9/11 Commission report, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf, the first Andrews fighters were airborne at 1038 (page 44), while United 93 would have likely reached Washington by 1023 (page 45) FullMoonCity (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the report(s) of the 9/11 Commission is an RS (indeed, it's one of the most comprehensive/definitive sources available here). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to modify my request and have all of the verbiage of "Fighter Jet Response" section be deleted, and add the following instead. The information currently on the page is mis-leading and very incomplete. It is important for the Flight 93 legacy because it would have almost certainly reached it's target in Washington if it were not for the actions of the passengers. I am new at editing Wikipedia, so forgive me if I could have incorporated the references better.

"There were two sets of fighters in the Washington DC area responding to the attacks on 9/11, the 119th Fighter Wing from Fargo, ND that were manning an alert site at Langley AFB, and the 113th Wing based out of Andrews AFB. The Langley fighters arrived over Washington at approximately 10:07 and were geographically in position to stop Flight 93, but the 9/11 Commission was doubtful that they would have been successful due to the pilots being unaware of why they were scrambled, the lack of accurate information on the location of Flight 93, and the lack of a shootdown order. [1] The Andrews fighters never had a chance of intercepting or stopping Flight 93, since the first fighter took off at 10:38, which was well after the 10:13-10:23 window that the 9/11 Commission projected Flight 93 would have likely reached Washington. [1]

The three F-16s belonging to the 119th Fighter Wing were scrambled out of Langley AFB shortly after NEADS received an erroneous report at 09:24 that AA Flight 11 had not hit the World Trade Center but was instead heading towards Washington DC. [1] The Langley pilots had intended to fly to the Baltimore area to position themselves between what they believed was AA 11 and Washington. [2] NEADS subsequently ordered the Langley F-16s to proceed to Washington based on a report of an unknown plane 6 miles Southwest of the White House that they received at approximately 09:37, however, the fighters were approximately 150 miles away from Washington when they received this order and arrived over Washington at 10:07. [1] [2]

The 113th Wing at Andrews received a call from the Secret Service shortly after AA flight 77 hit the Pentagon to “get anything you can airborne”. [3] The first F-16 airborne out of Andrews was piloted by Billy Hutchison who took off at 10:38, after having just landed at 10:25 following a training mission to the Dare County Range. [1] [3] Hutchison had limited fuel and 20mm training rounds in the gun, which he had planned to use on the engines and cockpit of Flight 93. [3] [152] Two additional F-16s took off from Andrews at 10:42, piloted by Marc Sasseville and Heather "Lucky" Penney, they had full fuel, and 20mm training rounds. [3] Sasseville and Penney have stated that they had planned to ram Flight 93 to bring it down, instead of using their bullets. [149] None of the Andrews pilots were aware at the time that Flight 93 had already crashed. [150]"

[1] “The 9/11 Commission Report” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf

[2] Ress, David, (September 11, 2021) “The role Langley fighter pilots played on 9/11”, Daily Press. https://www.dailypress.com/military/dp-nw-langley-fighter-pilots-911-20210911-2pusimeqjnds5nxqepudoju7li-story.html

[3] Office of Inspector General, National Guard (September 28, 2001) “Declassified interview of Dan Caine” https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2012-042-doc3.pdf

These are already in the reference section: [149] https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44459345#.VN2Y1PmUe7Y [150] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2015/09/06/7c8cddbc-d8ce-11e0-9dca-a4d231dfde50_story.html [152] https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14farmer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& FullMoonCity (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This has been open for a month with no movement, so they're is clearly no consensus for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 March 2022

Typo in the fourth paragraph of the "Passenger and crew phone calls" section:

Burnett related this to the other passengers, and told Deena he and a group of other passengers were putting together a plan to retake the plane.

The word "related" should be changed to "relayed." Bigbuckalex (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done  melecie  t - 06:35, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on October 22, 2022

The hijacking subsection mentions that the hijackers on the other three flights (Flight 11, Flight 175 and Flight 77) waited "no more than thirty minutes" to take over the aircraft. I think this should be changed to the slightly less specific "no more than half an hour," since Flight 77's team took just over 30 minutes to hijack the plane. Hmm1994 (talk) 08:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport

Just something I think should be added to the Crash section of the article.

A few minutes prior to the impact, first responders on the ground were planning to evacuate the nearby Johnstown-Cambria County Airport after one of the passengers aboard UA93, Ed Felt, informed the 9-1-1 dispatchers of the hijacking. The plane went down before anyone could be dispatched, and their efforts were redirected towards Shanksville.

Audio of Cambria and Somerset County emergency radio communications from the morning of September 11th. Brandondsantos (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Abu Zubaydah

The section on intended targets includes reports of the testimony of Abu Zubaydah. The page should include an appositive phrase indicating that Abu Zubaydah's testimony was given under a context of torture. This is critical for the reader to consider, when evaluating the veracity of statements made in such conditions. Mccartneyac (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2023

Change the crew list to add “purser” to Deborah Welsh’s name. 2600:1016:B12D:2740:69A1:A1A1:59B2:50EA (talk) 23:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

I’m requesting an edit to improve clarity.

Requesting to change this:

Al-Qaeda had intended for the attacks to be carried out by 4 five-man teams

to:

Al-Qaeda had intended for the attacks to be carried out by four teams of five men each

Thank you Kevin chen2003 (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2023

Correct "[...] Burnett was quickly able piece together the hijackers' true intentions [...]" by adding a "to" after "able" in "Passenger and crew phone calls" subsction of "Hijacking" section Longe Lemon (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 14:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Mike Pence citation

I believe it would be good to add some context to Vice President Mike Pence's citation on the Memorials part. One might be led to think he was the Vice President by the time of the attacks. I suggest simply adding, "On the sixteenth anniversary of the crash, Vice President Mike Pence, who served in Congress at the time of the attacks, spoke at the memorial [...]". LucasBitencourt (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Cockpit recorded voices

It seems like the part about the last voice recordings in the Passenger Revolts section uses outdated sources.

The final spoken words on the recorder were a calm voice in English instructing, "Pull it up."

This can't be true if you take the official transcript of Flight 93 voice recording into account, since there is no voice transcribed that said "Pull it up". ([2]https://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/flight93cvr.html)

I assume this is because the source (Ref. 83), which is from 2003, before the official transcription was publicized, must have been wrong. 217.9.50.118 (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

There is a repeating sentence in the introduction.

I am requesting a change from:

"The hijackers planned to crash the plane into a federal government building in the national capital of Washington, D.C. The hijackers planned to crash the plane into a federal government building in Washington, D.C., the U.S. capital."

To:

"The hijackers planned to crash the plane into a federal government building in the city of Washington, D.C., the U.S. capital."

Or:

"The hijackers planned to crash the plane into a federal government building in the national capital of Washington, D.C." Omerhijazi404 (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: A small typo (I think) on 25 September 2023

I believe the following sentence in the Hijacking > Cockpit transmissions and recordings section makes more sense with the word "time" removed: "Officials believe that at around 09:28, the hijackers killed Mark Rothenberg,[47] assaulted the cockpit, and moved the remaining passengers and crew to the rear of the plane time to minimize any chance that either the crew or the passengers would interfere with the attack". Mcneda (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

slight error

Picture box in "Hijackers" section is missing a photo of Ahmed al-Haznawi. So it describes 4 people in the caption, but only has photos for 3 of them. Violarulez (talk) 18:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Toxin-related deaths

I think it would be important to note in the Aftermath section that numerous individuals, particularly federal investigators, that participated in the response and subsequent investigation into Flight 93 have died from 9/11-related illnesses, particularly due to inhalation of carcinogens at the crash site.

These individuals are as follows:

- Special Agent Laurie Fournier, Federal Bureau of Investigation (December 26, 2009)

- Special Agent William Daniel Craig, Federal Bureau of Investigation (April 9, 2012)

Much better and specific attribution concerning O’Connor and Walker will be needed. Acroterion (talk) 04:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Added additional individual. Removing individuals lacking credible sources. Brandondsantos (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently fails criterion 1.b.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Missed Flight 93 I noted that there is no summary style paragraph of the various movie or TV dramatizations originating from this event. I would consider a comprehensive article to need at least some mention, in the body rather than hatnotes and "see also"s, of these derivative media. But I don't work in FA land much... am I wrong? Jclemens (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

A paragraph near the end of the head of the Aftermath section had one sentence listing three of the films and documentaries about Flight 93. I've gone ahead and added a second sentence about I Missed Flight 93 just after it to resolve the merge. This should definitely be considered for further expansion into its own section or sub-section, though. SlyAceZeta (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)