Talk:United Airlines Flight 93/Archive 1

message: :This flight was renumbered from Flight 93 to Flight 81 in October 2001 out of respect for those who died. Amongst the first passengers to fly this route was Lisa Beamer, wife of Todd Beamer.
Airlines don't change the flight numbers out of respect for anyone, but because the flight numbers of crashed planes become infamous instantly, hampering ticket sales. I find it appaling that the United spin doctors came up with that "out of respect..." line -- this is standard practice in all crashes. Is anyone else for removing that bit out the article?
Markonen 16:54, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. The above wording was the result of a compromise that came about earlier this year. See the talk pages for Flight 11 to learn what the details were. It also addresses the spin doctors comment that you made. Arno 07:20, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight renumbered 

message: What is this about?
:For instance, according to his own widow, passenger Edward Felt did not report seeing 'white smoke' pouring into the toilet from where he was making a phone call from the plane
He probably didn't report seeing pink elephants either, so what? AxelBoldt 00:52 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)
There have been a number of reports that a passenger - named in later ones as Edward Felt - reported seeing white smoke pouring into the toilet from where he was making a phone call. These reports have been discredited. An example of one of these incorrect reports can be found on http://www.unansweredquestions.net/timeline/2002/mirror091302.html
Arno
I've removed an entire section that argues that he did maybe see white smoke for the above reason. Arno 06:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White smoke 

message: Arno made some changes recently, and I wanted to comment.
* "They deduced that their flight was on a similar mission, and they made a decision to attempt to take over the flight from the hijackers." was removed as redundant. I think the article would be better with the sentence back in. I think it may be obvious, but I don't think it's redundant, and it's good to state the obvious.
:: I removed this? I don't recall, and I would have left it in. Arno 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK.  I'd forgotten that I removed it! Arno 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incidentally, that was Lisa Jefferson who overheard that statement, not Lisa Beamer. Arno 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think I did this because the passage was in the wrong area. Arno 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A number of recent changes 

message: There is a rule not to create "memorials" to 9/11 victims on Wikipedia.  That generally makes sense, since listing 3000 victims is a lot.  Plus there is a seperate Wikipedia site listing all victims.  
But listing the half dozen passengers that we know fought back against the hijackers on Flight 93 (based on their calls to family and others) does make sense.  I think their roles (i.e., Beamer, Burnett, etc.) are significant enough and newsworthy enough for a brief mention in the Flight 93 Wikipedia article (basically one sentance, also noting that other unnamed passengers may have helped too), with small seperate bio stubs for the ones we know who fought back.  If anything, those few passengers may have saved that aircraft from crashing into the White House or Capital.  It is a legitimate historical fact worth noting, especially given the fact that the terrorist hijackers are given extensive bios on Wikipedia. Norweigan Forest 00:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing the passengers we know who fought back

message: I have just created a new article, Zacharias Moussaoui. He was indicted by the US DOJ on Conspiracy to Commit Aircraft Piracy, et al. on December 2001 . Can we document this? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was already an article: Zacarias Moussaoui. Mirror Vax 14:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fifth hijacker? 

message: A GFDL map of the flightpath would be nice. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (SEWilco 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: Is there really a controversy over the memorial?  The only source cited is from a ideological (presumably right-wing) blog, making it far from objective.  Unless there's some other source, I'll change the section to make the controversy sound less significant, which it appears to me to be.  -Tjss 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This part of the Trivia section was totally unclear, and named one hijacker that wasn't even on flight 93.  I fixed this according to the cited article.  Just wanted to let someone know what had been tinkered with and why. --TurabianNights 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hijackers' ID Theft

message: The whole section "other points of interest" severely subtracts from the entire article.  It's not well written.  Most of the references are from a single source.  Some of the refereces don't match their description.  In particular, the statement "That witnesses observed debris falling out of the sky, like confetti" isn't backed up by its reference.  I haven't read all of the other pages referenced, but they're suspect.
I'd recommend a complete rewrite of that section.  Perhaps a good amount of it should be removed entirely.
Those of you set on putting conspiracy theories into this page ought to focus on the page dedicated to conspiracy theories. Egumtow 00:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, several of the sources don't meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of how inane I feel that info to be, I don't see a problem with someone adding that info into the conspiracy page (not on the general page), if you can find appropriate references for each of them. A query at Internic shows markbingham.org was registered on Sep 12 by a guy in Berkeley, probably an acquaintance of Mark Bingham's. Egumtow 07:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracies 

message: There is a movie now playing in theaters concerning this air flight. Martial Law 21:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MOVIE

message: Is it Flight 853 or Flight 191 which is the current closest equivalent? AnonMoos 09:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency in article

message: This article seems dedicated to perpetuating the US Gov's conspiracy theory about what caused the plane's crash. The 8 mile distance between known debris fields  makes the government theory "patent nonsense" and should, if anything, be the theory dubbed "conspiracy theory". The shot down theory has more science behind it and should be given at least equal weight in a truly NPOV article, it seems to me. 64.229.28.213 12:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article dedicated to US Gov's conspiracy theory 

message: Why was the word 'allegidly' removed from four planes ______ hijacked? All that means is that is what they agree on.
*Probably because it is horrifically misspelled.--TurabianNights 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegidly Removed 

message: I've heard that flight 93 didn't crash in shanksville at all. The people I heard it from claimed that the site was bare, no plane parts in sight.  They went on to note that the aircraft that was allegedly used for flight 93 was never scheduled for takeoff that day, and is *still* "active" (in service). I don't have another source for the second allegation, but I was wondering if the first should be put in the "other theories" section. Fresheneesz 19:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other theories 

message: I think we should include a list of everyone on this flight on this page (captain,officer,flight attendants,passengers,hijackers). What does everyone think?
One problem is that the list at http://sep11.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks:_plane_passengers and the individual entries do not seem to be updated much. If sep11.wikipedia.org is meant as more of a tribute, I think the passenger list should be present on this page as factual information.Pixelface 00:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crew and Passengers

message: Yes baby, we are going mainstream! --Striver 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainstream