Talk:American Airlines Flight 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After the FAC director promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{ArticleHistory}} template when the FAC closes.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Aviation WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Aviation Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Aviation accident task force WikiProject Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. New York State WikiProject This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. WikiProject Terrorism This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Trivia 2 Third video? 3 Terrorist Images 4 Narrative Voice 5 Plane Image 6 Timeline 7 Waleed al-Shehri Is Dead 8 Flight renumbered 9 Jet fuel theory 10 Article name 11 Tribute page problem 12 map 13 Suggest moving some material 14 Crash Infobox 15 Timeline Materal 16 Navigation 17 Third video? 18 Hijacker Seating 19 new 20 Comments

[edit] Trivia

The flight is briefly mentioned in the opening scene of the film Two Girls and a Guy which was filmed in 1997. The character of Lou (played by Natasha Gregson Wagner) met her unfaithful boyfriend (played by actor Robert Downey Jr.) aboard this flight.

Unverifed and Trivial. KyuuA4 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third video?

I'm sure we all know about Pavel Hlava's video and Jules Naudet's video of American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower:

"Jules Naudet, a French cameraman, and Pavel Hlava, a Czech immigrant, both filmed the crash of the plane into the building."

But a caption mentions that there was a third video?!

"A frame from Pavel Hlava's video, one of only three known videos that shows Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower of the World Trade Center."

Is this an error or is there really a third video?

B4nny 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Jules Naudet, a French cameraman, and Pavel Hlava, a Czech immigrant, both filmed the crash of the plane into the building.[10] A web cam set up by Wolfgang Staehle at an art exhibit in Brooklyn to take images of Lower Manhattan every four seconds, also captured images of American Airlines Flight 11 crashing in to the North Tower.[11]"

The third video is listed in the article 156.75.192.113 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)UserBlah

[edit] Terrorist Images

It is not important to have the images of the terrorists in this page. Doing so glorifies them - instead of demonizing them. Furthermore, they have their own Wiki pages where their images are included there. KyuuA4 19:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, look at American Flight 77 and United Flight 93. Neither included hijacker photos before I removed the ones from Flight 11 and Flight 175. KyuuA4 19:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narrative Voice

In the section titled "The Flight," the voice starts out using past tense. However, it shifts to present progressive (or something like this) during later sections (e.g. when the fighter pilots are scrambled). I don't have a good English background, so I was wondering if this was correct or should be changed. Tpoore1 02:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be changed to all past tense. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plane Image

"AA11 on the morning on 9/11". Was it THE actual plane that went into Tower 1? Or is it a plane that flies the same flight path as Flight 11 but under a different flight number? KyuuA4 05:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

Is it necessary to have a Timeline section in this article? Information provided by the timeline section is already covered by the September 11 Timeline. Any "new" information included in Flight 11's timeline should be brought over to the September 11 Timeline. KyuuA4 16:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The information in the timeline should be merged into the prose, or else removed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Waleed al-Shehri Is Dead

Can we please modify or delete the "inconsistencies" when the BBC erroneously reported that Waleed al-Shehri was alive, when they were interviewing someone different and has since been confirmed he is dead? This seems to be put in there by someone who hasn't been updated as to this news, or someone who chooses to ignore news. RegBarc 08:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We need to pick one way or the other, I agree. But as far as I can find BBC hasn't retracted its story. It's still online, for example here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm and I google isn't giving me any retractions or corrections on it from BBC (if you have one, that will settle the whole question). Waleed's article claims the BBC was duped and cites a Spiegel report saying BBC had the wrong Waleed, but if BBC doesn't confirm that mistake we're down to one media outlet vs. another. Flip a coin?

If there's a retraction of this we should pull the "inconsistencies" line involving him and my edit to his mention at the beginning of the article. Whatever the case, it would be nice if all parts of AA 11 and Waleed Al-Shehri would all say roughly the same thing about whether or not he's alive or dead. (I have no particular opinion or knowledge of which one it is; I made the edit to the top just to keep consistency within the article.) dmesg 10:33 1 May 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Flight renumbered

what does this mean "Flight 11 has since been renumbered Flight 25"?

It means that the American Airlines' morning flight from Boston to Los Angeles which used to be called "Flight 11" is now called "Flight 25". -- Someone else

Thanks!

I would have thought that this was obvious, but never mind....

Not to people who don't fly much and aren't familiar with how flights are numbered. --Brion 01:17 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Arno, "The regular American Airlines Boston to Los Angeles weekday morning flight" does not "[repeat] what the first paragraph said". The first paragraph refers to a particular airplane. The article is about a particular event in which one particular airplane took off, flew, and crashed. "This flight has since been renumbered" therefore appears to refer to that particular event -- as if we should all now say "American Airlines flight 25 was hijacked on September 11, 2001". --Brion 01:49 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Do you really think that anyone is going to interpret it in that fashion aside from that one guy who did not apparently read the article properly? The renumbering occurred after and because of the Sep 11 attack.

I sure didn't know what to make of it. I'm not an idiot (I like to think so, anyway, otherwise I'd have completely destroyed the server by now with my maintenance on the software) but I don't fly much and am not familiar with airline flight numbering systems, and would not know what "the flight was renumbered" refers to. It would surprise me very much if there are only two people who find the previous wording confusing; the clearer wording harms nothing. --Brion 01:57 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

I find the previous wording confusing too. As a non-flyer, I thought that each individual flight (as opposed to each service) had its own flight number, so the correct interpretation of this would never have occured to me. The version Brion restored might not be the best way round the problem, but it's better than what was there before. --Camembert

i agree with you both and that is why i made the original change - Arno shouldn't complain - i was merely trying to make it clearer for Wikipedia readers

-- Paul Melville Austin

OK, I lost my last two replies because Camembert and then Austin was here at the same time. I could not locate a date the flight number was changed - it was before Dec 2001 (there's nothing in American Airlines' press releases after that date, and no press releases available before December 2001) , and most probably Oct 2001 (as that was when flight 93 was renumbered - albeit by United Airlines).

But I have added a single word to this most controversial paragraph. It should now flow on from the very first paragraph. Incidentally, the copied bit came from the second paragraph.

Honestly, "flight route designation" isn't any clearer to me than "flight number", particularly when only one term shows up without the other. What's wrong with "The regular Boston-Los Angeles morning flight was later renumbered...", which is clear and unambiguous? (Of course there's also the question of motive -- call me cynical, but "out of respect for those who died" sounds less likely than "to avoid creeping out customers, who might switch to another airline or stop flying altogether".) --Brion

Hmmm. I'm a little lost. You say "Flight" makes more sense to you than "Flight number" or "Flight route designation"? But you didn't like the term 'flight' in the first place. Also, is flight 11-cum-25 a morning flight only? I'm not so sure on that one.

As for your cynicism - I don't say no to financial/business concerns being a secondary motive to the renumbering. I suspect that Flight 11 (and for that matter, Flights 175 and 77) now has the same ring about it as the name 'Titanic' - there never has been another ship by that name since the famous one that sunk in 1912. But I do believe that respect also figures in there somewhere.

--Arno

According to a source inside American Airlines:

"Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001 until their flight numbers changed, neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled flights on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/) do not list either flight that day. So to claim that they were hijacked is suspicious at best since they didn't exist that day."

So what about this? Shouldn't this be mentioned here? --Ingeborgsjon 00:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jet fuel theory

Someone else said: "I still think the jet fuel theory has been dismissed, anyone KNOW?"

As far as I know the jet fuel theory still is the most widely accepted one. That is if by "jet fuel theory" you mean that the burning jet fuel is what caused the structural collapse. From what I have read in newspapers and seen in documentarys on the Discovery and History Channels: The force of the impact destroyed the fire retardant form and the burning fuel melted the metal supports that held the floors to the load-bearing beams that formed the outer and inner walls. They eventual failed and this caused an unstoppable pancaking chain reaction as one floor hit the one below and those two floors hit a third below them and those three ..... The fire also melted the structural supports themselves and when the floors (read: horizontal bracing) started to pull away from the load-bearing walls and pancake there was nothing to keep the outer load-bearing walls from bending inward. They then quickly snapped (gross exaggeration: H -> ><). --mav

Yes, that's it, the initial reports were, I think, distorted in making the fire much hotter and much longer-lasting than non-aviation-fuel fires, neither of which was true. It's the initial reporting that was discarded: the fire remains the cause of the collapse, not because it was so hot or so enduring but because the unevenness of the heating of the steel led to structural collapse. The rôle of the jet-fuel tends to be overemphasized: it's the fire left after the jet-fuel had been consumed that made the building collapse by reducing the structural integrity of the bracing. So the article wasn't wrong per se, I was just reacting to the over-emphasis in the initial reporting on the jet-fuel. I think there may have been a reoport after thae analysis of the microscopic structure of the recovered steel that talks about this, but I can't find it on the net. -- Someone else

My understandig is that the trusses - ie the floor supports of the towers - were simply not built to withstand the sort of temperatures that was produced by the burning fuel from a 767 aircraft. Arno

According to a report I remember hearing (I think in 2005), but cannot specifically reference, the paper ignited by the jet fuel was the bigger factor in the collapse. Paper and wood fires are nasty things, and according to this same report, the fire was much hotter because of the paper than the jet fuel. It sounds counter-intuitive, but that's what I remember. -- BlueNight

The problem here is that even the offcial report from NIST shows that they couldn't reproduce the required temperature to weaken the steel. --Ingeborgsjon 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The jet fuel theory is still the officail version. Both towers are lumped under the same cause - seems unlikely but there it is. Building #7, however, wasn't hit so the foam falling off totally and/or symmetrically, if there was any foam, ( doesn't really matter ) and jet fuel ( way too low in temperature and BTUs to melt steel - so what!) - doesn't apply. Anyway #7 dropped like a brick - suddenly and vertically - no fuel, no structural damage, ah what the hell.

Exactly.

"No structural damage?!" What the hell? Go to 911myths.com and look for pics of WTC7 on 9/11-a huge section of the building's south side had been scooped out by the North Tower's collapse (WTC7 is less than 1000 ft from the North Tower). There's also several pics of blazing fires in WTC7 on that site. Also, the building's collapse wasn't sudden-it had been predicted by the FDNY at least an hour before, and eventually lead to the FDNY pulling all firefighters from the area when they realized its collapse was imminent (hence Silverstein's telling of the decision to "pull it"). Finally, if you've seen videos of controlled demolition, you would realize that the collapse of WTC7 is incosistent with controlled demolitions.

It's not. It's very consistent with controlled demolition. --Ingeborgsjon 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope nobody's promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories on Wikipedia. Wikipidea should be neutral, which means it should also be as factual as possible. Specualtive conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact should not be given equal treatment to theories that are actually logical and grounded in fact. They should be mentioned if notable enough, but not advanced if the facts don't support them.

Even the official theory is by definition a conspiracy theory so think you should reconsider your statement. Anyway Jetfuel burns quick and a relative low temperature in relation to a fire fueled by paper, wood, etc. And there are hard evidence that the fires in WTC didn't reach any high temperatures. --Ingeborgsjon 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that steel looses strength long before it melts, you don't have to have high enough temperature to melt steel to cause a collapse

Also keep in mind that steel acts as a heat pipe according to the laws of thermodynamics. Heating up steel until it weakens is very hard and could not be achieved by those briefly burning fires. --Ingeborgsjon 00:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! Steel loses around 50 percent of its original strength at 1100 degrees Fahrenheit. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has reported that pockets of fire reached 1,832 degrees Fahrenheit. That's because jet fuel was only the source of ignition, and most of it burned off after ten minutes. Office furniture, carpeting, curtains, paper - combustible materials like these were the things that intensified the heat of the fire... heat that was sufficient to weaken the steel to ten percent of its original strength. A senior engineer at the American Institute of Steel Construction has supported this, and that's good enough for me. But then, maybe he doesn't know about the heat pipe effect, eh? heh 71.204.49.76 (talk) 06:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

To the person who moved this page: See the top of this talk page. AA Flight 11 has been renamed AA Flight 25 so there is no reason to have a more complicated title than American Airlines flight 11. BTW, even if AA did not do this then this title should still be used even though, possibly some day, there might be another famous AA flight 11. We would worry about disambiguation then. --mav 05:14 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

The renaming of the article was not related to the renumbering of the flight, please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (precision). - Patrick 11:42 Jan 23, 2003 (UTC)

Plus from what I notice, the names of some "doomed flights" are abbreviated like TWA 800 while others are fully spelled out. It is standard for American Airlines to be fully named instead of abbreviated. See Air Disaster List by Airline. KyuuA4 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tribute page problem

Was trying to call up the tribute page to update a passenger spelling, but when I do, it displays/reverts my status as logged out rather than in (and the page shows up nonexistent if you type in the URL straight - ???). Any mods/experts who can explain? Chris Rodgers 09:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, just discovered problem is it's a separate wiki and therefore presumably requires separate creation of id, etc. Chris Rodgers 09:48, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] map

It would be great if we had a PD map of the flightpath.

Done. (SEWilco 04:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

Uh, come on. Theres accually an ARTICLE on this? Son Goku22

[edit] Suggest moving some material

As this is a very long article, going beyond the level of detail normally found in Wikipedia, I'd suggest moving some material to a separate wiki such as the 9/11 Encyclopedia, which could be linked from this article. I'm particularly thinking of the timeline - better to mention key events than list the whole timeline.

It's important to record as much detail as is available, but not all of it should be on Wikipedia. --Singkong2005 ^talk 06:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would we want to do that?--MONGO 07:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The time line for this article is unnecessary because timeline items are already covered in the 9/11 Timeline. If article size ever becomes an issue, the time line for this article should be removed. KyuuA4 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Futhermore, the addition of various images, particularly at the bottom are not "cooperating" with the page layout. KyuuA4 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash Infobox

Added crash infobox typically found with all airliner incidents. I merely used the article itself to fill in the table.

Upon filling in the numbers, I failed to include the number of fatalities from Tower 1. KyuuA4 03:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

20 November 2007: Hi, as far as i see, the photogr. is one of the second impact (2wtc). The gear is coming down northward. White smoke shortly after the fuel-explosion at 2wtc. black smoke at 1wtc. the picture or the caption had to be changed, if i´m right. --Asdfj 09:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline Materal

Here is all the material included in the timeline for this article.

See also: September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks

All times are in New York Time (EDT or UTC - 4).

Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

6:02: Mohammed Atta flies Colgan Air (Portland International Jetport, Portland, Maine to Logan International Airport, Boston, Massachusetts), along with Abdulaziz al-Omari. It is reported that Atta broke into a fight in the parking lot of Portland International Jetport.

6:45: Atta calls another hijacker to confirm the attacks are on while sitting on Logan International Airport.

7:59: Flight 11 takes off from Logan International Airport; it is bound for Los Angeles, California.

8:13: The last radio communication is made from Flight 11, when a hijacker accidentally addresses flight control rather than the plane intercom. A recording of what is believed to be Atta's voice says, "Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." The flight path begins to stray away from the scheduled one and moves southwards. It is also reported that Flight 11's transponder signal is turned off at this time.[1][2][3].

8:19: Betty Ong, a flight attendant on Flight 11 [4] alerts an American Airlines reservation desk of a hijacking in progress, including the stabbing of two crew members and a passenger. Attendant Madeline Amy Sweeney shortly afterwards begins telephoning the Boston Flight Services desk. Neither desk is prepared to take calls of this nature, but both eventually begin further transmitting the information [5].

8:20: The FAA's Boston Center flight controllers decide that Flight 11 has probably been hijacked.

8:21 Flight 11's transponder signal is turned off but the plane remains on radar screens. (Prior to the 9/11 Commission's report, news organizations reported this time as 8:13 or immediately thereafter.)

8:25: Boston Center flight controllers alert other flight control centers regarding Flight 11; however, NORAD is not yet alerted.

8:37: Flight 175 confirms sighting of hijacked Flight 11 to flight controllers, 10 miles (16 km) to its south.

8:37:52: Boston Center control notifies NEADS (Northeast American Defense Sector), the northeast sector of NORAD, of the hijacking of Flight 11. The controller requests military help to intercept the aircraft.

8:42: The FAA's New York Center requests information about Flight 11 over the radio. Flight 175 responds: "Ah, we heard a suspicious transmission on our departure out of Boston, ah, with someone, ah, it sounded like someone keyed the mikes and said ah everyone stay in your seats." [6] New York Center acknowledges and says it will pass the information on. Shortly after, Flight 175 itself is hijacked and also begins to move southwards.

8:46: Two F-15 fighter jets are scrambled from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, intended to intercept flight 11. Because Flight 11's transponder is off, United States Air Force pilots do not know which direction to travel to meet the plane. NEADS spends the next several minutes watching their radar screens in anticipation of Flight 11 returning a radar contact.

8:46:40: Flight 11 crashes at roughly 490 mph (790 km/h) into the north side of the north tower of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99. (Many early accounts gave times between 8:45 and 8:50). The aircraft enters the tower mostly intact. It plows to the building core, severing all three gypsum-encased stairwells, dragging combustibles with it. A massive shock wave travels down to the ground and up again. The combustibles and the remnants of the aircraft are ignited by the burning fuel. Since the building lacks a traditional full cage frame and depends almost entirely on the strength of a narrow structural core running up the center, the fire at the center of the impact zone is in a position to compromise the integrity of all internal columns. Two home video cameras are known to have recorded the impact (see above). People below the severed stairwells in the north tower start to evacuate; no one above the impact zone is able to do so.

8:46 to 10:28: At least 100 people (some accounts say as many as 250), primarily in the north tower, trapped by fire and smoke in the upper floors, jump to their deaths. There is some evidence that large central portions of the floor near the impact zone in the north tower collapsed soon after the plane hit, perhaps convincing some people that total collapse was imminent. One person at street level, firefighter Daniel Thomas Suhr, is hit by a jumper and dies. No form of airborne evacuation is attempted as smoke is too dense for a successful landing on the roof of either tower.

8:49:34: The first news and radio organizations report an explosion or incident at the World Trade Center. CNN breaks into a commercial at 8:49. CNN headlines first read 'World Trade Center disaster.' Carol Lin, who was the first anchor to break the news of the attacks, said:

"Yeah. This just in. You're looking at obviously a very disturbing live shot there. That is the World Trade Center, and we have unconfirmed reports this morning that a plane has crashed into one of the towers of the World Trade Center. CNN Center right now is just beginning to work on this story, obviously calling our sources and trying to figure out exactly what happened, but clearly something relatively devastating happening this morning there on the south end of the island of Manhattan. That is once again, a picture of one of the towers of the World Trade Center." [7]

Later, Sean Murtagh, CNN vice-president of finance, in an on-air phone call, said from his office in the CNN New York bureau that a large passenger commercial jet hit the World Trade Center.

8:50: NEADS is notified that a plane has struck the World Trade Center as they continue to locate the flight on radar.

8:53: The F-15s at Otis Air Force Base are airborne. Still lacking an intercept vector to Flight 11 (and not aware that it has already been crashed), they are sent to military controlled airspace off Long Island and ordered to remain in a holding pattern until between 9:09 and 9:13.

10:28:31: The north tower of the World Trade Center collapses from the top down, as if being peeled apart. Probably due to the destruction of the gypsum-encased stairwells on the impact floors (most skyscraper stairwells are encased in reinforced concrete), no one above the impact zone in the north tower survives. The Marriott Hotel, located at the base of the two towers, is also destroyed. This second collapse (the south tower had already collapsed) is also viewed live on television and heard on radio.

[edit] Navigation

Where the Flight Data Recorder and the Voice Recorder found?

What was the probable mean of Navigation by the terrorists? - terrestric, VOR, RNAV? Is there any clue from the flight path? From what distance could they see New York?--84.137.52.62 14:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

No, the FDR and CVR were not found for AA11 or UA175. However, the FDR and CVR were both found for UA93. Both were also found for AA77 at the Pentagon, but the CVR was so badly damaged that nothing useful could be extracted from it. The FDR information for AA77 and UA93 and information on use of autopilot on those two flights, as well as air traffic control and radar tracking data for the four flights are available from the NTSB.

It appears that Hani Hanjour keyed in coordinates for Ronald Reagan National Airport, which is located close by to the Pentagon. I think it's safe to assume that Marwan al-Shehhi (UA175) and Mohammed Atta (AA11) also used autopilot.

On UA93, I think the captain Jason Dahl fought with the hijackers and may have done something to damage the autopilot. By this time, airplanes flying around the country (UA93 included) had been alerted of the attack on the WTC, so Jason was aware of what was going on. The autopilot may have still been working, but if you look at the altitude profile for UA93, you see that Ziad Jarrah may have had trouble flying the airplane and was a particularly poor (and most poorly trained) pilot of the four. The plane rapidly lost altitude after it was hijacked. Keep in mind that at point G on the chart, they were flying over Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Here and in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, the tops of some mountains exceed 3000 feet, so the plane was already frighteningly close to the ground when the passenger revolt happened. The field near Shanksville is 2200 ft above sea level. If the passengers never took the plane over, I'm not sure Ziad had the ability to keep flying the plane all the way to Washington. They were heard on the CVR saying something like "bring the pilot back", perhaps meaning that the First Officer Leroy Homer was still alive and was needed. --Aude (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How exact is the picture in the article about the flight path. Maybe there are other pictures, that show a more detailed flight path (with more steering corrections)? (give me a link). Even from the shown fligth path in the article it seems to me not straight enough for sole autopilot use. The same is for the not very straight flight path of UA 175. The pictures make me think that there should have been at least many heading corrections to the autopilot. Given the excellent visual flight conditons at that day, from how far could they have seen New York. Does there flight path follow some other visual clues (river, interstate highway, big cities)? In many countries investigators tend to make after a crime a detailed reconstuction with participation of the caught criminal (sometimes filmed and shown in the news). Was there a live reconstruction of the flights of the four airplanes and the military airplanes? I confess, that I can't see a real sense for that, but in many countries a Crime reconstruction is routine. And since we know (a little bit) how many detailed investigation was carried out after the attacks I could imagine such reconstruction flights (maybe with switched off transponders) to compare with the radar data targets of Sept. 11. --84.137.58.178 20:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third video?

I see this point has been raised before. A photo caption says "three videos" captured the crash. Just two are mentioned in the article. Since this is apparently an error, I will change to "two." Please supply a cite if there was a third video.--Mantanmoreland 17:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The third video isn't quite a video, but a series of shots taken from a web cam by Wolfgang Staehle. I have edited the caption and added a reference regarding the web cam. --Aude (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Must say that I have never heard of that one. Can you supply a cite if one not already in the article?--Mantanmoreland 17:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The cite is in the paragraph, "Jules Naudet, a French cameraman, and Pavel Hlava, a Czech immigrant, both filmed..." --Aude (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hijacker Seating

Where did information regarding their exact seating come from? KyuuA4 15:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Appears to be incorrect, according to the grainy jpegs of the flight list at [8]. Checking the first jpeg, page 1 of the flight 11 passenger list, shows Atta and Alomari in row 8, not 9. ADave (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] new

see at Crash Infobox

Added a question on 20 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfj 09:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC) corr. bypp! --Asdfj 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'm done editing for now. I may think of more to add later, but overall the article is comprehensive, well-sourced, and ready for FAC. One issue I do see are places where the article cites a news source, such as this on the San Francisco Chronicle's website. While this is on their website, it's a verbatim republishing of text from the 9/11 Commission Source. It's fine to link to this page, as a source, but the citation is given in such a way that makes it look like the San Francisco Chronicle authored and published it. The material really needs to be attributed to the 9/11 Commission. It's also possible to directly link to the material on the 9-11 Commission website. --Aude (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)