Talk:American Airlines Flight 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAmerican Airlines Flight 11 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 11, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 16, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted

Timing[edit]

The source for the time of 08:46:40 is the NTSB Flight Path Study from February 2002. The 9/11 commission report (July 2004) repeats this, citing the NTSB. The source for 08:46:30 is NCSTAR 1-9 (November 2008). This is both more thorough and more recent. It discusses the times in detail in section 5.2.3, Timing of Key Events. This presents the times of various events, uncertainties in timing, and the process used to determine when things happened to how many significant figures. This source, both more detailed and more recent, is the one we should use. Alternatively, we should stop fussing with 08:46:40/08:46:30 and report the time as 8:46. If reliable sources make an issue of 08:46:40/08:46:30 then we can look at that, but mainstream sources don't really take this up. If this all seems incomprehensibly fussy and obsessive, do a Google search for "8:46:40" "8:46:30" and see who does take this up. (posted at Talk:Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks and Talk:American Airlines Flight 11.) Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of videos that captured it[edit]

It says in the lead "Many in the streets witnessed the strike; several video recordings show the initial impact, the most well known being that recorded by Jules Naudet."

"Several" is a little inaccurate. There is some guy who was going into a tunnel that got kind of like the explosion, there was a time-lapse shot, or whatever they are called, where it is only like 3 or 4 pictures of it, then there is the Naudet footage. So really there is only one shot showing the impact, not just the explosion. So the word "several", at least to me isn't really accurate.

I propose the minor change to this or something similar:

"Many in the streets witnessed the strike; however few video recordings captured the moment. Documentary film maker Jules Naudet captured the only known footage of the initial impact." Zdawg1029 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change this article.[edit]

This is a featured article. I assume it was reviewed very carefully. I respect that.

How about this proposal? The actions of Betty Ong should be separated from the article and put at the very end.

I think such proposal is bad but it is consistent with what other editors are suggesting in the 2015 Thalys train attack article talk page (last section). They want to separate the actions of the crew and stick it at the end. Maybe they want to hide it?

I will do it for this article to see how it looks then revert it back within a minute. By looking at the diffs, you can see if it improves it.

What do you think? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be left in the original order. Experimenting with position of paragraphs should only be made when consensus is gained from editors who have worked hard to make this a featured article. David J Johnson (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of Plastic Handcuffs[edit]

"Some workers found bodies strapped to airplane seats and discovered the body of a flight attendant with her hands bound, suggesting the hijackers might have used plastic handcuffs."

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but this paragraph casts some doubts.Here, it says that some workers found a body of a flight attendant of Flight 11 at Ground Zero with her body bound to the seat, suggesting that the hijackers used plastic handcuffs.

If it is the case, it should have reported by Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney, that a flight attendant is tied to a seat by the hijackers or she is held by the hijackers.

Can someone help me answer this oddity?? Books Nash (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Books, I really don't see any problem at all here. Betty Ong and Amy Sweeney made calls at a very stressfull time and couldn't have reported everything. In any case had one of them done so, it does not add anything to the outcome. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Passport[edit]

"Suqami's passport survived the crash and landed in the street below. Soaked in jet fuel, it was picked up by a passerby who gave it to a New York City Police Department (NYPD) detective shortly before the South Tower collapsed."

Something is really fishy.How come passport, made up of the most fragile and combustible object, PAPER, managed to survive a fiery explosion and inferno of the impact of Flight 11 on North Tower and land unscathed on the ground, so much that we can even easily read and identify that it belonged to hijacker Satam al Suqami.

Can someone explain this oddity?? Books Nash (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, we are straying into "conspiracy theory" territory again! It is certainly not "fishy" or an "oddity". Firstly, when the aircraft hit the Trade Center tower, the impact sent debris over a large area of ground - documents included. Secondly, a passport (and I speak from many years experience of the production of passports and other high-security items) does have a hard card cover, which is not a fragile or quickly combustible. In fact passport covers are designed to protect the pages of the document from damage - however caused. Also please do not use caps - it is considered shouting. David J Johnson (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David J Johnson, I did not meant to shout.I meant to emphasize the point.I hope you understand. Books Nash (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't understand. You are attempting to add conspiracy theories to Wikipedia on the 9/11 attacks and this will not work, as you need reliable sources and references, which you seem unable to supply. David J Johnson (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Books Nash merely made a point of information and you immediately attack his question as conspiracy-oriented? I think that is a personal attack and completely inappropriate. Leaving out that personal attack and just providing the information requested would have been the most appropriate thing to do. Let's avoid that sort of thing in the future, shall we? Jtpaladin (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Books Nash...basically, things happen. Had three or four passports belonging to hijackers been recovered and no passports from any passengers, then that might be odd.--MONGO 02:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Papers --some singed, some unburnt-- were visible on news footage and amateur video wafting out of the burning towers from impact to collapse. Some drifted in the wind as far as Brooklyn. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger Manifest[edit]

Does anyone have a reliable and verifiable passenger manifest for AA Flt. 11? The side box states, "92 (including 5 hijackers)". What is the source for this data? Earlier I deleted an external source that no longer worked so we need a source for this or that needs to be changed to "unknown" or removed as an item of information. My scissor-clock has begun to tick on this item, so can anyone help with this? Jtpaladin (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtpaladin: The link that you removed is not broken. The template that forms it is. If you go directly to the link itself [1] it works fine. The template seems to be adding something that breaks the URL. I'm looking into it. --Majora (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. --Majora (talk) 17:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Majora. I kept playing with it and couldn't figure out what the problem was so I deleted it. I appreciate the revert.
Majora, I'm requesting your assistance on the list of people on board this flight. The article states, "Passengers 81 (including 5 hijackers), Crew 11, Fatalities 92 (including 5 hijackers). Here's the problem: The link that we are discussing list 11 crew members and 76 passengers. That's a total of 87, not 92. Further, where are the names of the hijackers on this list? They are missing. So, the totals are off and the names are wrong since the F.B.I. has provided the names of the hijackers. Where are they on this list? Also, the website that maintains this information, NEVER FORGET FOUNDATION (I sent them a message requesting their help), has apparently permanently deleted this list. Why? Was the list inaccurate? I would appreciate your help in figuring this out. Perhaps we can find another source for the list of people aboard this flight. If you are not interested in helping, please let me know and I'll try and find another list myself. Thank you. Jtpaladin (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you check page 4 of The 9/11 Commission Report, you will see the total of persons onboard AA Flight 11: nine flight attendants, eighty-one passengers (including terrorists) and two flight deck crew; making a total of 92 fatalities. The report also notes that reference 22, concerning numbers onboard, was obtained from American Airlines. David J Johnson (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
David, thank you for that info. As you suggested I checked out that source but although we're given a number, we're not given the names. We have no idea ultimately who was on that plane. The reference number 22 does not give enough detail to determine whether the number is correct or whether it actually came from AA. I know it says that it came from AA but how do we verify that? I realize that this is not our job but it would have been nice to be able to verify the info. But since Wikipedia accepts the 9/11 Commission Report as a solid source despite issues with it, I have to agree that number given of the total passengers is valid. Again, I appreciate your help. Jtpaladin (talk) 05:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American Airlines Flight 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


AA Flight 11 vs UA Flight 93 films[edit]

The events of both flights have been memorialized on film. For unclear reasons, some apparently consider film of AA Flight 11 "trivia" while film of UA Flight 93 is OK. I see both events of both flights are interesting, impactful, and films of their final hours as worthy of note in the articles. This includes Zero Hour (2004 TV series), made by the same folks behind Mayday (Canadian TV series). PLawrence99cx (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should have kept your comments here and not on my personal Talk page. However, I have answered your query there. David J Johnson (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic: United 93 is based on factual events and based on passengers conversations with relatives and also with a some of the actual persons involved. My logic: Zero Hour S1 E3 is based on factual events and based on passengers conversations with relatives and also with a some of the actual persons involved. There is no logical distinction between them. PLawrence99cx (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies?[edit]

"Some workers found bodies strapped to airplane seats and discovered the body of a flight attendant with her hands bound, suggesting the hijackers might have used plastic handcuffs." I find this a little hard to believe, given the fact that the occupants of the plane were subjected to 465-MPH impact forces, raging fires and explosions, and the collapse of the building.76.0.130.8 (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "hard to believe". The impact of Flight 11 sent debris; including bodies, seats, passports (see discussion above) and engine parts over a wide area - not just on the WTC building. David J Johnson (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Investigators have recovered a pair of severed hands bound together with plastic handcuffs from the World Trade Center debris, police sources said Friday." Hmmmmmm76.0.130.8 (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That has two references so you could read those for further verifications.--MONGO 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Airlines Flight 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Airlines Flight 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improper description of how aircraft radios operate[edit]

In the Hijacking section of the article, there was a line stating


This does not properly express how aircraft radios operate, since the frequency would have been blocked by a stuck mic. Any pilot (including myself) would already know this, but you don't have to take my word for it: this phenomenon is described by the FAA here:


It's also described on the Carrier-sense multiple access page.

Other information on the American 11 page seems to express that Atta was keying the microphone himself, thinking he was addressing the passengers. This is similar to what is described as occurring with United 93.

The reference provided from the original statement is a Telegraph news article from two days after the attack. I have not seen any other reference stating this as such, and I think it's clear that the Telegraph article is not a good enough source for this claim.

With these things considered, I think the line should not be included in the article.

--Tkbrett (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the earlier version for the time being pending a resolution here. I agree that the Telegraph may not be an ideal source, and that there are some technical concerns here, but they should be resolvable by reference to the 9/11 report and other sources. There are a number of references to ATC being able to hear cockpit conversations, whether deliberately done or not. I'll look around and see if we can address your concerns without, perhaps, attributing a specific act. Acroterion (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being so eager to remove it! I'll keep making the case on the talk page here and leave the sentence there until everyone here is convinced. Anyway, so I've looked through the 9/11 Commission Report and have come to some more conclusions:
The report references radio transmissions being made by American 11, but it does not say anything more specific than that the messages were coming from the aircraft:
These are the extent of the transmissions received from American 11. There is no reference to Captain Ogonowski or the First Officer keying the microphone, like the Telegraph article alleges. I thought maybe they meant that as the hijackers began to storm the cockpit, the microphone was keyed, as was the case with United 93:[3]
The report then specifically says that later on, a hijacker attempted to address the passengers but keyed the wrong microphone and so the message was instead broadcast to ATC:
In other words, the mic was not hot the entire time. If this were the case, then all discussion in the cockpit would have been heard. We know this is not the case, given that the that the cockpit voice recorder was found for United 93 and the transcript was released to the public. I supposed the Telegraph article may have been saying that a pilot keyed the microphone as the hijacking was beginning, just as happened on United 93, but there are no references to the struggle being heard by ATC in the report.
I have to conclude that this is another case of the media getting something wrong regarding aviation. To summarize, my key points against the sentence being included is would be:
1. It does not align with the description of events as laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report; this point makes up the bulk of my post here.
2. The article was written without significant detail being known; The article came out on shortly after the attack (two days) in the subsequent confusion where little was known by the public and media.
3. The article is not a reliable enough source; I would trust the Telegraph or other respectable newspapers normally, but I would not trust any newspaper to accurately depict the technology or mechanisms used on an aircraft unless the article was of great depth with significant research being conducted for its writing.
4. The description does not accurately describe how aircraft radios operate; This is the point that started my suspicion, but it is not my main driving argument given that I know this from my own personal experience as a commercial pilot, and I do not have any references for this point that directly refute the article, given the ambiguity of the articles language.
This is my position, and so obviously I would vote for REMOVE regarding the sentence. Let me know your thoughts or if you have any major problems with my argument. Thanks!
--Tkbrett (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you have some technical background and first hand knowledge. No reason to ask you to prove a negative but to exhaust the other options, can we locate any references that support the current wording or any similar wording, or do we need a better clarification?--MONGO 16:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One problem of Wikipedia is that experts are frowned upon in favor of reliable sources and consensus, even if the consensus is among non-experts. I value experts but have seen this problem with Wikipedia experts. Experts can locate reliable sources to cite, however, even if they, themselves, potentially carry little weight when voting with non-experts, which greatly outnumber experts. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia needs subject matter experts so long as they are willing and able to not cite their own expertise and instead provide reliable sources outside their own knowledge base. I am an degreed and am certified by a governing body expert on one subject matter but I do not edit those articles, but that's just a personal choice. Since this article is a Featured Article any changes aside from a typo usually brings folks in to make a hasty revert, perhaps to force a talkpage discussion, which in this case seems to be nearly in favor of adopting the proposed changes, and that demonstrates that we are not totally closed minded if adequate explanation is provided. This however may not be the case site wide depending on who is watching the store and that is a shame.--MONGO 15:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One problem with the source may be that the reporter might have imagined "cabin" to be the cockpit, as opposed to the normal use of "cabin" as the passenger cabin - this often happens with laymen reporting on aviation topics. I made a quick review of the 9/11 Report and haven't found a reference to this either, and right now I'm inclined to support Tkbrett's position. I'd like to check a couple of other potential sources to see if there's something better than that of-the-moment report. If ATC heard something from Flight 11, it should be well-documented, but I'm not finding anything that I'd call reliable so far. Acroterion (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too have had a quick check through my 9/11 sources and cannot find any reliable quotes for the present text. If we cannot find any confirmed sources, then I suggest we adopt Tkbrett's corrections. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At what point do we actually remove the line? I feel that I have raised enough doubt that until a more reliable source can be found, the sentence should be removed from the article entirely. (Though I don't think that there will ever be a source that allows it to remain, given that the sentence describes an impossibility.) Of course, that's my own perspective, so I'd also like to hear what editors more experienced than myself think. --Tkbrett (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has gone off track. The source says explicitly that the pilot was pushing the 'push-to-talk' button intermittently, i.e. holding it down but not speaking into it. It's quite clear what the source means and that what the source says is not accurately reflected in the article text. I have amended. DrKay (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That does address point four (4) from my argument since this description makes more sense now within the technical aspects of an aircraft radio.
With that said, I am still unsatisfied with the line as it is written now, given that it does not address the main thrusts of my argument. The re-written line now says:
This re-write still does not address problems one through three (1-3), namely that
1. It does not align with the description of events as laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report. Reading through the first chapter of the report, specifically pages 18-19, it simply states that the aircraft was completely silent and did not respond to any radio calls, up until the transmission from the cockpit. There are no references to intermittent taps on the push-to-talk key.
2. The article was written without significant detail being known; The article came out on shortly after the attack (two days) in the subsequent confusion where little was known by the public and media.
3. The article is not a reliable enough source; I would trust the Telegraph or other respectable newspapers normally, but I have not seen any other sources present the information the sentence is describing.
Are there any corroborating sources that are perhaps more reliable? As a few others pointed out above, if this did occur, then it would be readily apparent in the relevant material. Thanks. --Tkbrett (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change, quoting the NYTimes. This is the latest rendition.--MONGO 17:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times article is plagued with the same problems as the Telegraph article though: it came out two days after the attack, and both make reference to information we know isn't true. For example, one quotation:
We know that this does not corroborate with the more reliable sources (e.g. 9/11 Commission Report, NTSB recordings, etc.) so we don't use the newspaper article as a source in the other sections of the article. But the same could be said of the keying of the microphone from AAL11: the more reliable sources do not corroborate it, so why should we use it in this article? Making reference to the National Transportation Safety Board's Air Traffic Control Recording, they cite the last transmission received from the AAL11 pilots as
The next transmission they cite from AAL11 come around ten minutes later:
Again, no reference to any mic-keying while the hijacking was taking place.
I apologize if this is coming off as needlessly pedantic, but I think that it is important to correct this given that this is a feature article. --Tkbrett (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Toby Harnden (2001-09-13). "Hijackers reassured pilot while they stabbed stewardesses". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2010-03-10. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20140327115212/https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/pcg/B.HTM
  3. ^ Homer, Melodie (2012). From Where I Stand. Langdon Street Press. ISBN 9781936782741.

I am removing it; unfortunately, I was the one who put it on this article all those years ago, as I wanted to keep the myth of some of the heroism of 9/11, especially the flight crew. Flight 11’s pilot’s didn’t keep an open mic so that the hijacker’s voice could be heard. From what I have gathered, that was just early news articles misinterpreting why hijacker pilot Atta mistakenly transmitted to ATC when telling the passengers to stay in their seats. I’m not impeaching or downplaying the bravery of the Flight 11 crew, but that doesn’t seems to have been what happened. Regardless, I’m sure the pilots tried to fight back, but it would have been over quickly. We never know if they were killed or incapacitated, but we hope it was over quick.

No, "from what I have gathered" is WP:OR and is not acceptable. The admittedly early reports and shown in the references and there is a much later report from the Daily Telegraph. The para stays as it is properly sourced with dates etc; we just don't know what exactly happened and will never know. Also please sign any contribution you might make in the accepted manner. Thank you and regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the testimony of passengers on that plane (& by extension on the other three planes too as a descriptive general pattern of attack) stating the hijackers were armed with knives and had stabbed passengers and the pilots to gain access to the cockpit means that is virtually certain what happened to the pilots on this plane too.

In addition, the source (if you read it) doesn’t mention that the pilot was killed when he activated the radio was but was alive and that Atta’s words were to him and not the passengers, which makes no sense. The article refers to a pilot, this is very inaccurate even if one considers the source. The article continues to write in the text with affirmative language that the pilots were alive and somehow trying to interfere. Why does this continue to haunt this page?

Once again, you are not signing any contribution you might make and it is essential that you do so. The comments you make are still your own personal opinion, see WP:OR and this is not acceptable. You are also edit warring on the article page, again this is not acceptable and you will be blocked if you continue in this matter. You have also been told that their was no consensus for removing the paragraph from the article. Nothing is "haunting" the page, only your refusal to accept that WP:OR is not acceptable and their is no consensus for the paragraph removal. I repeat, please abide by Wikipedia conventions: do not edit war, sign your Talk page contributions and - if you wish to continue on Wikipedia , consider opening an account - rather than editing from an IP address. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Officer Thomas McGuinness?[edit]

What happened to him while he was in the plane? Was he stabbed to death or did they use Mace to gain control? I would think that the pilot wouldn’t just voluntarily give up control of their flight without a fight to the death. Any help? He’s only mentioned once in the article and I can’t find any sources for how he died anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1322:8149:85A9:A3CA:6A89:7C5 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Ogonowski[edit]

The article quotes the "pilot of the first aircraft to hit New York's World Trade Centre was told that he was "not going to get hurt" as Arab hijackers stabbed air stewardesses at the rear of the plane to lure him out of the cockpit... Ogonowski...had the presence of mind to activate a "push-to-talk" button intermittently so that the authorities on the ground could listen to the horrific events unfolding on board American Airlines Flight 11. Ogonowski was told: "Don't do anything foolish. You're not going to get killed." But even as this was happening, the pilot and his co-pilot, Tom McGuinness, knew that their stewardesses were being attacked with knives at the back of the aircraft."

This makes no sense, the article makes it sounds like Ogonowski was heard on some (unreleased) transmissions: Atta grabbed the ATC radio (which we were told he probably thought was the PA system) and made his statements and then put the ATC radio back. When Ogonowski pushed the yoke mic button whatever he and Atta said could be heard. Addtinoaly, the article makes it sound like Atta was saying his infamous words to the pilots, when from the recording he is clearly saying it (at least he thought) to the passengers.

I was the one who actually uploaded this source (at least the Telegraph one) on 13:32, 21 January 2017‎. from Ogonowski`s article. It was removed from the Ogonowski article by Tkbrett, and ironically, David J Johnson who is resolute to keep it removed it previously on 09:09, 13 July 2016, saying‎ and I quote "Telegraph article did not name reliable sources and was filed in immediate events after 9/11".

The fact is, Flight 11's captain did not key the microphone. As Tkbrett mentioned, the article suggesting he did was written immediately during the confusion of 9/11 and I had (due to my young age, was wanting to perverse the myth of some of the herosim on 9/11) wanted to make it look like it did happen.

Like it or not, the fact is it did not happen.

  • Again, this is an example of an IP (?sock) not signing any contribution they might make on a article Talk page. This contribution is full of personal opinion and you should read WP:OR. Whilst it is true that my personal contribution was originally to keep the Telegraph quote removed, my contention now is that the original discussion had no consensus and therefore should stand, per Wikipedia convention. Please consider opening an account. David J Johnson (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AA11 Crash Time[edit]

I have been checking several sources like the LA Times which have the crash time at 8:46:40 A.M. And I find it and the Commission report which has the same time to be the most accurate timestamp. Anyone want to give me feedback on this, I would appreciate it, thanksMiked1992 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bodies Found In Plane Seats[edit]

There are no credible articles written after 2001 claiming that passengers were found strapped in their seats from Flight 11. It was a rumor at the time but has been debunked countless times. Why is it not removed? AML11998877 (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Osama Bin Laden taking responsibility is removed[edit]

In a recording, a few months later in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda's leader, Osama bin Laden, took responsibility for the attack. The attack on the World Trade Center exceeded even bin Laden's expectations: he had expected only the floors above the plane strikes to collapse.

The "videos" have been removed from the original page as evidenced in the Talk page, should this segment exist on this page? Should that page have a reference still added? Shadowjonathan (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is engine information "far too much detail"  ?[edit]

Since @David J Johnson reverted. I have a question.

EVERY SINGLE Aircraft accident, incident article on wikipedia contains information about aircraft engines, the year of manufacture and so on. On this particular incident, the aircraft engines played a major role in the crash as they were ejected out of the opposite ends of WTC 1 and WTC 2 as debris and landed on the streets below and people took photos of them, and that is how particular aircraft partly was identified and the debris that belonged to them.

How exactly Aircraft engine information is not relevant ("far too much detail") to an article about AIRCRAFT INCIDENT?

It seems there an organized effort by @David J Johnson to get rid of important and relevant information for some reason, which is concerning. This just undermines wikipedia as a platform for getting crucial and important information. And you are just helping conspiracy theories to thrive, because there are tons of people and growing in numbers who actually believe planes didn't crash in WTC and never seen the engines because this information is withhold (for some reason). When it comes to such incidents, every detail matters and engines are integral part to aircraft operation.

So, why @David J Johnson even removed photos of engine wreckage? Maybe maps must be removed too because average person can't read a map anymore in 2024 and that is also "far too much detail" for the average mind who needs to be fed dumbed down information only? YitzhakNat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what does the engine type have to do with an event that did not involve an aircraft deficiency? Readers who want to know what kind of engines a 767 has can go to the article on the airplane, rather than the article on the terrorist incident. Whether they're P&W or GE engines has no bearing on any of the events, including the debris. For the same reason, the aircraft is described as a 767-200, not a 767-223, since readers looking for the event will not be concerned with the Boeing customer code, and people for whom that matters will already be aware of the coding. It's an encyclopedia article, not an NTSB report, a summation of the matters relevant to events. As for the pictures, there might be grounds for inclusion if they're relevant to the event, as opposed to showing engines for the sake of engines.
Your complaint about David J. Johnson is verging on a personal attack. Stick to the subject, not the editor, and read WP:SUMMARY. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Airlines_Flight_11&oldid=1210209309"