Talk:United Airlines Flight 93
|
|
- 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)
- 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)
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
Another unresolved matter, related somewhat to the first, is about the timing of the terrorists.
What exactly is unresolved here? The subsequent speculation, that Flight 93 was supposed to hit a Washington target around the same time as the Pentagon ended up being hit, is useful and interesting speculation, but I don't see what about this is unresolved. The plane was 40 minutes late due to congestion -- how could the hijackers have taken this into account?
- As you say, the plane was 40 minutes late in departing, and it's unclear as to how this affected the plans of the hijackers. Did they blindly adhere to their original plan , despite it badly behind schedule, or not? If not, then its possible that some other target other than an obvious one like the White House was intended, as those who organised the attacks must surely have guessed that such places would be evacuated 40 minutes after the Pentagon crash.
- I personally happen to think that the hijackers didn't modify their plans, and that the Flight 93 strike did indeed become 40 minutes behind schedule. I suspect that the hijackers would have been too brainwashed to do otherwise. But this is unproven speculation. Ergo, no article inclusion. It is best to list this matter as unresolved.
A number of recent changes
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.
- The "Roll it"/"Let's roll" paragraph was removed. I had originally added in this paragraph, based on a NYT story. But once you removed it I did a little research, and you're right. The NYT and I were wrong. A passenger said "Roll it", but there's no reason to think it was the same phrase that Lisa Beamer overheard.
- "The flight data recorder shows that the pilot rocked the plane to try to stop the passenger's attack before putting it into an inverted dive at 10:02:23." was removed. I don't understand why. Is it incorrect?
Thanks for your work on the page. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 14:35, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)