Talk:American Airlines Flight 77/Archive 1

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Note the part where they compare the 3-D model to the security cam footage (about 2:07). The scale matches exactly. Jedibob5 13:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon 

message: I am also going to dispute the factual accuracy of this article, along with all the others who have suggested this. There is too little evidence proving that a BOEING 757 hit the pentagon. I'm in agreement that SOMETHING hit the Pentagon, however, the lack of evidence would leave me to remove the word "factual" from anywhere in this article.  ((Anonymous))
I just read the part about Dulles Air Traffic Controllers tracking the plane.  It would be nice to either listen or see a transcript.  Recordings from Cleveland's Air Traffic Control tracking United 93 is available online for listening.  75.34.33.118 15:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag disputed? 

message: The sentence in the article "These theories do not account for the above mentioned in-flight call made by the passanger Barbara K. Olson to their loved one describing the hijacking, which is the only evidence what so ever that this event happened the way described on this page." seems to be too point-of-view for the article, I'll change it if nobody minds. Modular. (Talk.) 12:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference to "this page" is also inappropriate. Snip snip. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 12:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Extremely POV?

message: This article SHOULD have the  tag. 63% of all the people in Canada agree this is disputed. Look at the History and you will find that a lot of Wikipedia-users agree and share this view.
*http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
*http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html
*http://www.apfn.org/apfn/pentagon121.swf
*http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20051026163300114
*http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/10/326074.html
*http://physics911.net/
===Page history===
If you disagree with this article being  then look at the history of changes where you will find:
*"There is evidence for conspiracy theories and there is no evidence for the official version. Even though they may be wrong, these claims deserve to be in the article as of now."
* 14 edits by people who totally dispute the contents of this article.
* Look at the edits done by the people who dispute this article throughout it's history page. To me, it is plain obvious alot of people do dispute it.
:The tag says that the factual accuracy is disputed. What statements in the article are disputed? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally Disputed

message: If you disagree with this article being  then look at the history of changes where you will find:
*"There is evidence for conspiracy theories and there is no evidence for the official version. Even though they may be wrong, these claims deserve to be in the article as of now."
* 14 edits by people who totally dispute the contents of this article.
* Look at the edits done by the people who dispute this article throughout it's history page. To me, it is plain obvious alot of people do dispute it.
:The tag says that the factual accuracy is disputed. What statements in the article are disputed? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page history

message: It would be great if we had a PD map of the flightpath.
: Done. (SEWilco 04:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: The times in the article do not match the timeline on page 33 of the 9/11 Commission report.  http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec1.pdf (SEWilco 07:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Using verifiable sources - primarily the Snopes page, but also the 9/11 Commission Report - I edited out all qualifiers and claims that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, because they do not belong in the main article. Corrected the paragraph with inaccurate or misleading information to be more accurate. (I also fixed a lot of spelling and punctuation errors in that paragraph.) I left in the "Disputes" section (against my better judgement), because at least it is clearly identified as such, and a reasonable reader may discern for him or herself the veracity of its facts. Added the Snopes link. (JCaesar 07:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Questions about the official version are one thing. Commissions - as thorough as they intend to be - are still human, and therefore prone to both accident and political bias. Even when scandals and tragedies are thoroughly documented, information comes out years to decades later - either information not available to the committees, or not available to the public - which refute certain points of the official version. The revelation of the Howard Hughes diaries after the Watergate investigation, say, or the declassification of Naval documents after Capt. Timothy McVeigh's court-martial for the sinking of the USS Indianapolis come to mind. However, it's important to note: Hughes' diaries shed light on motives behind actions, not the facts listed by the investigation committee; and the Naval documents revealed that the court-martial unfair, not that the primary narrative of a Japanese sub sinking the Indianapolis was a fabrication. The section on problems with the "official version" looked fine to me, and I didn't touch it. However, I edited out of the main section all phrases such as "the object which hit the Pentagon," "Flight 77 allegedly crashed," etc. I see you went even further than I was willing to (again, against my better judgement) in my editing, and I agree with your correction. If you don't trust the government, that's fair, and you may even be right. But people who pretend their conjectures are more valid than government and independent commissions simply because they can connect random and incomplete facts into a new narrative are disingenuous at best and raving paranoid lunatics at worst. (JCaesar 08:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You say '...simply because they can connect random and incomplete facts...'; how is 'no plane on the photographs' random and incomplete? --- Mario78.0.140.255 01:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited Out Conspiracy Theories 

message: Before the next one of you redneck (censored) 'corrects' my inclusion of fair and informative photographs (most of which were taken by members of the US Military, all of which have endlessly appeared in international news media, and none of which anyone is claiming to be fake - correct me if i'm wrong on this-), answer me the following:
If the wings sheared off on impact, where are they in the photographs? 
(and if anybody starts talking about airliner 'vaporisation' on here, then wikipedia is already worthless and I am wasting my time. its like a film trailer: "From the people who brought you the magic bullet and WMDs, comes a story beyond all rationality.")
If the plane hit the ground before impact, why is the lawn unmarked?
A 757 impact is either:
(a) strong enough to bring down a steel reinforced world trade centre
or:
(b) not even strong enough to create more than a 9 metre hole in three concrete sections of the pentagon.
 (i'll give you a clue, both these things cannot be true)
But go on, dismiss me as a nutcase, censor me in the name of free speech, live in your safe little world, and bomb iran for more oil. the first thing hitler did when he gained power was firebomb the riechstag and blame it on the jews. you (censored)morons.
*1.) The impact of the 757 is not what brought down the World Trade Center.
2.) Actually, they can both be true. Vertical integrity /= horizontal integrity.
3.) Insults are not factual evidence.
4.) Nobody has bombed Iran in the last few years.
5.) You're absolutely right on at least one point. "Veritas" is Latin for truth. The Romans said it was often "in vino." So are you drunk?
6.) The fact that you have access to a Latin-English dictionary also is not factual evidence, fyi. Although you clearly don't have a German-English dictionary, because there is not, nor has there ever been, a building in Germany called the Riechstag. Which is pretty understandable, as it would make no sense to call a building the "Smell Day." However, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, they apparently committed arson - not a firebombing - on the Reichstag building, and blamed it on the Communists, not the Jews. You have a real problem discerning between facts and faulty memories of something you heard on the History Channel or an Internet documentary once, don't you?
7.) The fact that someone else did something else in a different set of circumstances 60 years of ago is not factual evidence. In a court of law, it wouldn't even qualify as "circumstantial" evidence. It would just be talking out of your crack.
When you have factual evidence that can be supported, when you have links to back your statements up, when credible sources can be traced from those links, you have facts. Until then, you have conjecture, and conjecture is not veritas, nor is it shinsou, alitheia or Wahrheit. You don't seem to be clear on your facts on anything, and das riecht wie Wahrheit, oder? --  (JCaesar 11:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veritas (that's latin for truth boys and girls) 

message: if there is no other evidence, witness statements are an important way of getting at the truth. but if I claimed that I had 'witnessed' bigfoot, you would expect me to produce some evidence to support this assertion. the idea that a 38 metre wide plane hit the pentagon is physically impossible. the existence of bigfoot is false, but in theory not necessarily physically impossible. Also, if something flew past me at 500 miles per hour, i do not think i would be able to identify it very accurately.
I keep trying to add evidence to falsify the (absurd, confused, wildly contradictory) witness statements (which I have read by the way). This evidence is in the form of factual measurements, and undoctored photographs. Because this evidence proves the witness statements are misguided, and you are all uncomfortable with that, you label me a 'conspiracy theorist' and censor me. Wikipedia has to decide whether it is about objectivity or conformity.
*"if there is no other evidence, witness statements are an important way of getting at the truth."
"Also, if something flew past me at 500 miles per hour, i do not think i would be able to identify it very accurately."
I'm going to sit back and let you meditate on these two statements for a little while. When you find the logical fallacy, gimme a call. (JCaesar 11:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This comment is not fair. For someone who seems to give much importance to details, you have forgotten that 3-letter word coming after the first sentence: *but*. This is all the point. The author says that witness statements are important *but* they can be biased (eg. because "object flying too fast"...). The author also says that when there are other contradictory evidences (like factual measurement), these statements should be supported by further evidences or explanations. (NoSuchUser 09:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  witness statements 

message: As people are apparently editing this page to include misinformation on those two topics, I'm editing the page with the correct information - namely, that the lawsuit and correction only apply to very specific pieces of evidence, and neither Judicial Watch nor the Gate have ever stated that they believe anything other than Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. If any admins have any problem with these edits, don't worry about editing them. Just contact me, and I'll happily do it myself.JCaesar 01:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me.--MONGO 13:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it from the fact that almost all references to conspiracy theories have been removed that this page is barely acknowledging them to avoid further vandalism? If so, I wholeheartedly support that policy. I tried to insert facts into the theories, but since they seem to have been ignored and rewritten multiple times yesterday, I'm happy to just ignore the whole issue and not feed the trolls.JCaesar 00:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a good job summarizing the Sfgate and Judicial Watch points more accurately.  We kept reverting back to your version.  But, with much of the conspiracy theories cut entirely by MONGO, I think the article looks better. Before the cuts, it seemed that nearly half the article was about conspiracy theories; it's more balanced now, between fact and conspiracy theory. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SF Gate Retraction and Judicial Watch Lawsuit 

message: Go on then, revert everything. What's wrong this time? I have added photographs and measurements of the crash site. If some of the licensing details etc are innappropriate, please tell me what I need to do/find out in order to correct this, instead of simply deleting them because they are 'conspiratorial'. I have removed the sentences making the claim that the aircraft's wings were forced into the building, because:
1)This is conjecture without evidence to support it, and should not be presented as fact.
2)It is physically impossible that the wings could have been broken off by an impact with a concrete wall, because (being fuel-filled and travelling at 250-300 miles per hour, their inertia would have been far greater than the wall's strength
3)Even if the wings had broken off (which is impossible) and been forced into the fueselage (which is also impossible as they are larger), the mass of the aircraft would still have been conserved, and absolutely could not have fitted into the dimensions of the crash site. RichB111.
*Is there a reason why you keep rebutting the misinterpreted use of the word "vaporization" from the article, when that word has been removed from the article for some time? I already clarified the full narrative based on supported links and removed that word altogether. Is there anything more I can do in the article to stop you from beating that horse that is not only dead, but has been, well, vaporized? (Short of re-editing the whole story to an unsupported and POV narrative because, well, that's not going to happen. Sorry.)JCaesar 19:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again 

message: Sorry. Typo made me hit "(, Enter" rather than what I intended to type in the explanation, and before I checked the "Minor edit" box. As you might expect, the "Reason for edit" should read: "Reverted edits by Richb1111 talk to last version by Tom harrison." Also, I see William M. Connolley took care of my polite request to Richb1111 before I wrote it. Never mind. Thanks. JCaesar 23:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Revision 

message: As the person who initially wrote the paragraph which is repeatedly edited by conspiracy theorists to include incorrect data about a lack of debris (the paragraph which currently, as of the timestamp on this comment, begins, "Wreckage was found from the airliner..." etc.), I've at last removed all the measurements and qualifiers ("little wreckage," etc.). The reason being, when I first wrote the paragraph, those measurements were already there on the page, and I was rebutting them with facts taken from the linked sources on the page. However, I cannot in good conscience say the measurements themselves are based on research found in other verifiable sources, as I frankly don't know where the author of those original measurements got his or her data, and I certainly can no longer be sure the source of those measurements was a reputable, verifiable source, so the measurements have no place in the paragraph. I'm also keeping with the decision to avoid having this page be a rebuttal of junk science, which is why the measurements were on the page in the first place. Until or unless the measurements of a 757 airliner are A.) verified by independent, reputable sources, and B.) prurient to factual description of the crash of American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon independent of conspiracy theories and conjecture, I see no need to have them remain on the page. And, so I changed my mind on the paragraph I had written in the first place and edited them out. JCaesar 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop deleting the information in this article, Rich...everyone knows that IP 139.222.100.226 is you......which means that, once again, you are at WP:3RR.--MONGO 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the Measurements 

message: The video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716.stm 
Apparently it is a "debunking" of the "wacky conspiracy theories". I find this absolutely fascinating, and demonstrative of how human beings are capable of accepting utter nonsense if they are afraid of going against the group mentality. In the first few frames, just as the object approaches the building, it is almost impossible to ascertain what the it is, because it is obscured by a plume of smoke. However, it is possible to ascertain that the object in the video is significantly smaller than a 100 ton Boeing 757. The top of the object is below the concrete block in the foreground. Judging by the traffic cone next to it, this block is 3-4 feet tall. Let's be generous, and say its 10 feet tall. A Boeing 757 is 44 feet in height. Even assuming (the utter impossibility) that it flew in on a horizontal trajectory less than 5 feet above the ground, presumably hitting the telegraph poles/trees in the foreground without deviating from this straight horizontal trajectory, the tail of the aircraft, and pretty much the top of the fueselage, would still be level with the top of the building, not to mention above the concrete block! The idea that this is a video of a kamikazee 757 airliner is physically absolutely absurd.
I am making no comment on the validity or otherwise of the number of witness statements that corroborate the "official story", which seems to get multiplied by the day. Witness statements are subjective. Do you think that if something flew past you at 300 miles per hour, you would be able to clearly identify markings and read words written on that object? I am sure none of the witnesses are "agents of the US government" or some such nonsense. But, again, if I claimed that I had just "witnessed" the appearance of the Loch Ness monster, you would ask me to produce evidence, because this claim is contradictory to human understanding of nature. The claim that a 38 metre wide airliner can fit in a 9-10 metre hole, that its wings can sublimate or be folded into the fueselage, that it can crash without marking the lawn (and this is true; show me photographs of the lawn covered with burning wreckage and petrol!), that it can be invisible when recorded on video, is far more contradictory to human understanding of nature than the existence of the Loch Ness monster. (And no I don't believe the loch monster exists, for goodness sake). If we found "nessy" tomorrow, it would not require a complete revision of human understanding of evolutionary biology, it would just mean there was a species we had not discovered yet. If flight 77 hit the pentagon on 11/09/01, a complete revision of human understanding of physics is required. The reason that conspiracy theories are almost always wrong is because they need to be elaborate, many individuals must be involved. Which is the more elaborate suggestion, that witness statements are incorrect and confused (not to mention self-contradictory), or that mass can simply disappear and become invisible, energy is not in fact conserved, and all human understanding of physics is wrong?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.222.100.226 (talk • contribs) .
:Are you suggesting some change be made to the page? Tom Harrison Talk 14:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  video 

message: You can't have it both ways gentlemen, if the snopes "debunking" sites get a link, so should the conspiracy theories they claim to debunk. This is called giving both sides of the story. Also please stop saying that the conspiracy theories are based on images taken from hundreds of feet away. They're simply not. Finally, I make no apologies for the "allegedly"'s I've added. These issues are not certain. They are under dispute, and a matter of debate. PLease stop trying to present the situation as being all resolved. It isn't.rich 22:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom Harrison, I see you removed the Snopes link. The only problem here is that some of the facts in the article were taken from the Snopes link, and from the sources it quotes (60 Minutes II, a US Army press release, The New York Times, Reuters and The Guardian), not all of which are available and linkable from online. Is there some way we can confirm that all the facts in the article are now available in linkable sources online for the purposes of Wikipedia's verifiable rule? Or do we need to remove all facts obtained from those sources unless we can verify them somewhere else? Please let me know, and I'll make the necessary changes. Thanks. JCaesar 06:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to including the Snopes link if you think it's useful or necessary, but I would rather use the Times as a reference if there's a choice. It doesn't need to be online, as long as it's verifiable. Of course online refs are a nice convenience. Tom Harrison Talk 11:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. When I get a chance (not right this second), I'll cite Snopes' primary sources and provide links where possible. Personally, I'd prefer to use primary sources, anyway. JCaesar 00:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  last revision 

message: Richb1111 wishes to present only one side of the story by using one image to document that there was no airplane debris anywhere outside the pentagon. There are many images that show clipped light poles, damage to a generator/small structure by the right engine, parts of airplane debris scattered about, mostly small pieces and over 100 eyewitness accounts that they saw an airplane. There is zero evidence of a missle, and this is not a conspiracy theory website, so I removed the misleading image he put here since he is using it in the wrong manner.--MONGO 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: If we were going to mention any conspiracist claims, it should be those of Thierry Meyssan. His was one of the first big conspiracy theories, and is much better known than Scholars for 9/11 truth. I'm not even sure the blurb accurately characterised their claims. I thought they were the wtc7-controlled-demolition people. Also, I would take issue with, "This and other physical and political evidence has given rise to hypotheses of United States government involvement..." It's pretty clear from the literature about conspiracy theory that it works the other way: theory first, evidence later. Tom Harrison Talk 19:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories 

message: Why is there no mention about the black box? Lapinmies 23:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite possibly, it did not survive the impact -- OR -- it was not released.  Then again, the NTSB would have requested for it if it were ever to be found. KyuuA4 16:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Box 

message: why have the article about the plane crashing and not any of the conspiracy theories?? all of you who said "i happen to believe the plane did hit it" and that's your reason for it to being there then what about me saying "i happen to believe the plane did not hit it" and that a missile did, so, why is not that in there?? i watched a video in yourtube.com i think and it says that there's a report of flight 77 landing somewhere in another state, i don't know if it's true or not but i think that theories regarding flight 77 should be here because NO ONE knows for sure what happened yet so why only talk about the plane crashing if in fact maybe it didn't happen?? --CesarCossio 01:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the plane landed in another state, why haven't any of the passengers and crew gone to their families??? TripleH1976 20:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My god, are you really talking about neutrality here? Someone edited out a whole paragraph describing (quite objectivelly) the results of the impact, but as it was a description a "conspiracy teorist" would support, it was taken out. Come on! I think both sides of the story should be reflected in teh article, and not just something that is biased by the "official" side of the story. Do you want neutrality? Be neutral. Wikipedia is full of shit, sometimes. --Yago Stecher 02:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What paragraph was edited out? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The video shows the edge of the plane and palne's wing which moves at an angle which can also be interpreted as a (much closer, since it's smaller) missile moving to the left; let's call it "the object". The next frame in the 2nd video shows something big, gray, very close to the ground (or on the ground), further away and to the left, adjacent to an explosion in the building. Both videos show the explosion much further away (and to the left) than the proposed missile should be (since if "the object" is a missile, it is much smaller and must be much closer). The plane theory explains what we see, the missile theory doesn't (what is that huge grey thing? why does the missile moves to the left but hits the building in a different point, much further away?) So to conclude, I don't just "happen to believe the plane did hit it", I saw it on the video.Dan Gluck 08:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... 

message: I added an explanation of what is actually seen in the security camera, since it is unclear at first sight (took myself a lot of time to understand what is actually seen there) and should be explained. It seems to me that many of the CT believers just don't understand what they're seing there. 
For some reason frames from the second video, in which the plane can be seen more clearly (24-26 seconds from its beginning) than in the first video, were not added to this article. If someone can add it it'll be good (I don't have the appropriate editting tool to take it from the .wmv file).
Dan Gluck 08:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on uploading these frames from the second video.  It's just a matter of playing the video and taking screenshots.  This animation is also helpful. --Aude (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Frames from the second security video are here, and frames from the first are here. These are taken from the videos available on the DOD FOIA office website. --Aude (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A security cam note added

message: The link for that picture doesn't work anymore.  Fighting for Justice 21:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxi cab picture was taken by a DOD employee, thus is in the public domain, and can directly be put into this article. (rather than an external link).  I had to swap out this other picture, because I'm having problems with the way the images are lining up (overlapping, ...).  For the same reason, I took out the Hani Hanjour picture.
Will try to fix this problem, but not sure a fix is possible without doing something different with the  template. --Aude (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxi cab picture 

message: In the Hijacking section the image showing the flight path overlaps the text of that section under FC5 Firefox -- Witchinghour 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has also happened to me.  It's not the only problem with images here - see above section.  I'm not sure what's causing the problems, but have done more rearranging of the images.  The Barbara Olson image is now gone (it was fair use anyway, don't think its use here qualifies). --Aude (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image overlap in Firefox 

message: No mention of alternative accounts other than a link to the 9/11 "conspiracy theories" page. My attempt to neutralize the article was swiftly reverted by Tommy harrison. 62.218.238.2 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: Hi, I added the neutrality dispute banner because it's pretty blatantly clear after reading this discussion board that the neutrality is most definitely disputed. Unless someone has the article locked in order to stop unregistered edits either way or the dispute is resolved i'm going to keep adding the banner if it gets taken away. --Aliwalla 09:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the article do you think needs to change in order for it to follow our WP:NPOV policy? – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: probably a more in depth look at the criticisms of the pentagon over the incident and the issues surrounding the CCTV footage --Aliwalla 22:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that discussion is here, with a link to that article provided on this article. --Aude (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The conspiracy articles and the other articles on 9/11 seem to be inextricably intertwined that it seems foolish not to discuss either on the respective opposite pacakge. So, let me rephrase that: an acknowledgment that there many people believe that the CCTV footage clearly shows Flight 77 crashing into the building, perhaps a single section at the end saying what peoples concerns are with the footage released from the pentagon while leaving the rest of the article unaltered. 
I would also mention that the pentagon has not released the footage from the other CCTV camera's that filmed the event but in the near future plans to (as i have heard). I know this is a delicate issue for many people owing to the fact that the attacks occured very recently (on the one hand) and over the criticisms of the Bush administration and neo-conservation/neo-liberal actions (on the other hand)But I hope we can get past this to create a neutral article that doesn't promote either view. --Aliwalla 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What other footage are you referring to?  The gas station video?  The video from "the hotel"? or what? --Aude (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i'm not sure which footage, probably those two. But i'm not really arguing which side is right or wrong. My concern is that much like a synposis of Economy of Malaysia is found on the main Malaysia page, a synposis of the criticisms of the footage and the pentagon's story should also be found at the end of this article. Otherwise readers of this page will not be getting the full details of the event. --Aliwalla 08:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the security video section, to reflect that the Citgo gas station footage has been released, and the hotel video is forthcoming.  I have also added something on the conspiracy theories, with a link to the appropriate article that discusses them in length.  Even among the 9/11 truth movement, people have concluded that a plane did crash into the Pentagon.  So, per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, we really don't need anything more here than a brief mention of these theories. --Aude (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not really talking about theories nor the other two CCTV footage sources, i'm talking about the specific concern over whether or not an American Airlines 757 Jumbo Jet can clearly be seen in the CCTV footage that generated the still images displayed on the article. In all fairness this needs to be addressed within the article in the way I discussed above. --Aliwalla 23:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made further edits, providing additional sources. Further discussion of the videos belong in the linked article.  --Aude (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of banner 

message: The release of this video was forced by FOIA lawsuit plantiff, Scott Bingham who owns the site, www.flight77.info .  CNN was given a copy of the video and they played it stating that the release was the result of "...a lawsuit" ( http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1507751455 ).  This lawsuit was not Judicial Watch's lawsuit, as they were not given a copy of the video, and have not made any public comment on the origins of the video.  It is through Flight77.info's Youtube URL that we've see the only clean copy of the release of the Doubletree Hotel video.  The full size mpeg version that was given to Mr. Bingham by the FBI can be downloaded here: www.flight77.info/double.html
Further, the Associated Press has reported ( http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/4821121.html ) that the release was in response to Mr. Bingham's lawsuit.  Also, the AP is running raw video of the Doubletree video giving Flight77.info credit as the source: http://video.ap.org/v/en-ap/v.htm?g=7A85930A-62FE-4C26-AAFE-5045AA18FD43&f=ap&fg=copy 
Also, Scott Bingham cited as source for the video in the Huffinton Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/12/04/fbi-releases-neverbefore_n_35528.html
Given the above citations, can we have the information about the release of the Doubletree Hotel video updated in the article?
--Jimwilson
:Done, aded and rephrased the section, and added a link to the youtube video. Thanks.--MONGO 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already linked (in the references section), with this version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ  --Aude (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubletree video release 

message: The article is missing a very important piece of information, namely that Cheney, who at the time was the commander of NORAD (the north american air defense), intentionally failed to stop the air plane that was flying towards the Pentagon:
“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President…the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??”
The testimony can be watched in full on youtube:
and is accessible at 
Mineta's testimony
--Hasanidin 05:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Norman Mineta testifies in front of the commission on Cheney's refusal to stop airplane 

message: To really compare the two photos a person needs to open up multiple windows and the plane is easy for people with bad eyesight to miss unless the comparison is readily available. By creating an animated composite and highlighting the plane I've attempted to solve these problems. 
Since it was reverted, I'm wondering what other's thoughts are on this. The reverting editor cited a concern about photo editing, I was actually careful to ensure the display showed the unaltered images for at least four seconds. (The yellow and white flashes total like 1.1 seconds.) Anynobody 05:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I'm concerned this is original research. I too would like to know what people think. Are there any similar situations elsewhere? Tom Harrison Talk 11:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Photo editing is somewhat of a concern, but my greater concern is that the animation keeps playing over and over again.  In fact, my first edit to any 9/11 page was removing an animated gif. Linking to an actual video might be better, which could be uploaded to commons since it's public domain.  A series of still images would also work.  I have five stills in my user space, with one highlighting the plane - User:Aude/Pentagon.  Though, still have some concerns about editing the image and highlighting the plane like this. --Aude (talk) 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate photos or highlighted animation? 

message: For the other 3 airliners that crashed, flags are placed on their gates of departure.  How about for this flight? KyuuA4 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the gate number - Gate D26. I usually fly from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, but sometimes from Dulles.  Will try and find this out next time. --Aude (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag at Departing Gate