Talk:American Airlines Flight 924

message: I do not think we should merge the articles since this events occuring on this flight are more far-reaching than the man shot. It deals with issues about transportation safety, U.S. Air Marshalls, etc., and therefore they should remain separate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.158.122 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 18 December 2005
Granted, there are going to be differing reports from differing news agencies, but what is written in here is significantly different from what I am hearing at this moment from CNN. I say we not get ourselves pissed off at eachother over what is "right" and what is "wrong" and just wait until tomorrow. Like I said, otherwise, people will just get angry and we'll have a big fight on our hands. Lancer Sykera 21:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Well. Putting an event that has occured and (the) person that caused the whole incident or maybe even a small involvement are totally different. The merger would be absolutly unnessesary. ---Tsugaru- 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that move to Rig. Alpizar, since the entire incident centers around one person. If it's needed, the redirect can still be categorized by including the category on the same line (no hard return). -- nae'blis (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Merger

message: I removed "The federal air marshals handled the situation exactly the way they are trained to do." from the article. On second thought it might be correct, however something like that should be cited. Can anyone verify it? I'd have no problems with it going back in if that's the case. Mrtea 00:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you are right it isn't biased, but I don't have a veryfying know source yet. Dustimagic 00:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: My(non-professional) opinion is that there is no advantage to putting anything biologically active on the plane.  Explosives are easier to procure, there's no guarantee that whatever agent you have will even survive the explosion, and an explosion at 30,000 feet will do an awful job of spreading the bug.Attakmint 20:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: What's the principle that says "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance"?  Like pretty much everybody else on the planet, the Feds have policy and procedure, and part of that probably includes treating this as a bomb threat.  I'm not willing to pass judgement on the shooting until the investigation is finished.  Oh, and on the disposal of the bags - I know forum posts are hardly authoritative, but I've heard from a forum I frequent that the bags were opened with high pressure water, and that water was used to short out any possible electronics in bombs.  So technically, the bags weren't blown up, they were blown open.  It still strikes me as convoluted, unnecessary, and somewhat overdramatic to pack a biological agent in a luggage bomb though. Attakmint 11:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Interesting article. Confirms a lot of theories. Seems like a dubious source to me though. Mrtea (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I changed the text that he was traveling with a woman back to that he was traveling with his wife.  The woman was heard by a witness to shout "My husband, my husband!" (see the nytimes article, among others), so I think we can fairly deduce that she was his wife.  It also makes more coherent sense than her just being a random woman.  --Squigish 02:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  woman vs. wife 

message: Several news articles contain information that Rigoberto Alpizar claiming to have a bomb might be wrong. Although the sky marshals say it's so, witnesses claim that Alpizar didn't speak at all. All together the situation is way too confused and based on rumors more than facts. I'd consider not just typing off news reports. --Madayar 21:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bomb claim 

message: I support the idea. Raichu 22:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I but nobody seems to be interested. (Especially considering nobody has commented in 4 months) I think the best way would be to merge it into the Rigoberto Alpizar article, which would remain, replacing the American Airlines Flight 924 article. The content is about Alpizar and his death, not necessarily the flight. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​(Talk) 00:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after reading the full article, it seems there is really no information in this article that isnt in the Rigoberto Alpizar article, with the exception of some background commentary. Maybe the best thing to do is simply delete this article or replace it with a redirect to the Alpizar article. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​(Talk) 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just redirect it (actually, I'll do that now); it's likely/possible that some information was transferred from here to the RI article, and deleting this article damages our compliance with GFDL licensing requirements. -- nae'blis 18:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge