Talk:United Airlines Flight 175

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Actually 175?

Image:United Airlines 175 N612UA.jpg

[edit] Video and Flightpath Images?

What happenned to the video and flightpath image that used to be here?

Hubert Shiau 23:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Hubert Shiau

Was that THE Flight 175? KyuuA4 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. The image appears to come from here. It is the actual aircraft, N612UA, however the photo was taken in April 2001 at JFK airport. I don't see Fair use rationale for using the photo here. --Aude (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Street engine

Does someone fancy doing some research and writing up about how the engine came off this plane as it hit the WTC and landed in the street? (and perhaps how the engine was from a 737....!)

Google for "street engine" and you will get a lot of information.

RenesisX

The famous wheel and the engine were "found" underneath large tarpoulin scaffolding. It is conceivable that they were "dropped" from there. There have been no photos of bounce-damage on the streets nor has there ever been ONE SINGLE PART traced with a SERIAL NUMBER. 203.172.184.19 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] map

A GFDLed map of the flightpath would be very nice. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 13:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. (SEWilco 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Crash Infobox

Added a crash infobox which is standard among articles relating to airliner incidents, notably crashes. The figure included in "Fatalities" only includes the number killed in the plane itself. However, the number dead from Tower 2 is not included. A figure adjustment is needed. Thanks. KyuuA4 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The majority of jumpers were from the North Tower?

An anonymous IP stated, in an edit summary, that "The majority of jumpers were from the North Tower". I have found very little information about the "jumpers", and I'm curious if there is a cite for this statement. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This bit of information is trite, not important, and unverifiable as no one was keeping count of how many jumpers; that'd be inappropriate. It could only be based on the death counts from the two towers; and Tower 1 had a higher death count. From this, it can only be implied that the majority of jumpers came from Tower 1. KyuuA4 16:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, there were lots of videos of jumpers (although they're damn hard to find nowadays). If there is footage of long periods of time wherein no one jumps out of Tower 2, but footage of many jumpers from Tower 1, then that would be good evidence that most jumpers came from Tower 1. But I haven't seen any evidence. I'd really like more solid information about the jumpers, as it's one aspect of 9/11 that America seems to be covering over or forgetting about. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image overlap in Firefox

At the bottom of the page, the images are overlapping the text under FC5 Firefox -- Witchinghour 02:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried some rearranging, though the {{sep11}} template is too far down on the page. Maybe the {{sep11}} template should be redesigned? or maybe there is one too many templates on this page, and the top infobox could go? --Aude (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Plus, all 5 terrorists have pictures included. Personally, I find objection in having one of them - let alone all 5 - pictured in this article. It's as if they're being acclaimed for this act. KyuuA4 18:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Story.crash.sequence.jpg

Just so you know, this image has no fair use rationale for this article. One needs to be written before it gets deleted. --Haemo 04:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victims?

What happened to the Victim List? IT only shows non-US victims and survivors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.160.224.17 (talk) 18:40, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power dive/rate of descent

Brhaspati, you have accuratedly described the average rate of descent in the final four minutes, but this does not mean that the power dive was at one consistent rate of descent over the full 4 minutes. As the text now reflects, the ATC controller responsible for UA175 at that moment gave an interview (cited in the text, and video is linked) saying that the plane "at the end" had indeed reached a descent rate of 10,000 ft/min. This does not imply that it was descending at 10,000 ft/min the entire 4 minutes, nor during the final few seconds when it was seen by witnesses on the ground. It just means that it reached that rate at one point, and was measured as reaching that rate by the ATC controller. No POV or OR here, or extrapolating, or stating as fact that it happened. Just reporting the testimony. 201.6.69.127 21:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] section on hijackers

WP:BLP1E states that people, like the hijackers, who are not notable except for the event, should be written about in the article and not have a separate article on them. It say's:

The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP1E#Articles_about_living_people_notable_only_for_one_event

Don't shoot the messenger. I am merely quoting Wikipedia policy, not just a wikipedia guideline. Mrs.EasterBunny 23:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is for Biographies of Living People. It's to ensure that we don't have articles on people who appear briefly in news stories on notable events, because such coverage is usually restricted to those news events and doesn't give a balanced picture of that person. It's partly to respect that person's privacy and avoid legal issues.
These hijackers — apart from being dead, which disqualifies them from that policy right away — have received such substantial coverage that we can source entire articles on them. Their lives have been covered in depth, in media coverage and in books, and the fact we have such long articles on them (not "marginal biographies") is a testament to this. To be honest, there's no chance these articles will get merged, or the hijacker articles deleted. 88.107.122.85 11:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commented Dialog

He warned

Controller:" Got him just out at 95 hundred, nine thousand now..."

Manager of New York Center: " Do you know who he is?"

Controller:" We don't know who he is...we're just picking him up now"

"New York Center: " All right heads up man, it looks like another one coming in"

Then two minutes later, Cameras trained on the burning tower captured the view of United Flight 175 as it came across Manhattan and turned and crashed into the second tower.

The above was commented material showing dialog within New York ATC moments before flight impact. KyuuA4 04:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exact Death Count

For AA11, there is a exact (or more exact) death count from within Tower 1. Is there a more exact death count for Tower 2? KyuuA4 06:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carmen Taylor Michael Hezarkhani.jpg

Image:Carmen Taylor Michael Hezarkhani.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradicting Flight Paths

Just a quick look shows a Conspiracy Theory viewpoint. However, given the amount of material here, I decided to dump it here -- just so that others can get a look at it -- and see what they think of it. KyuuA4 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again, the one-sided usage of the term 'Conspiracy Theory'. As if the Official Account is in no way a 'Conspiracy Theory' because the very mention of the words 'Conspiracy Theory' just brings with it negative connotations. Alternate theories of 9/11 are quickly labelled as 'Conspiracy Theories', misleading people into believing that because it is a 'conspiracy' theory, therefore it must have been devised by a lunatic. And by the way, the passage below 'Contradicting Flight Paths' is giving the facts of what can be seen from the news on that day (and of course, you should go check it for yourself, as immediately believing everything from this passage just defeats the purpose of rational thinking). And thank you to the OP, for being an example of someone who labelled (knowingly or unknowingly or purposefully with or without intent) a piece of writing that simply pointed out the contradicting news footage from that day (which I have checked and done so for myself from many different sources), as 'Conspiracy Theory'. To label this a 'Conspiracy Theory' is in my opinion unfair as it does not mention anything other than an aircraft hitting the tower but instead it is simply asking why different news stations showed different shots that contradicted each other and why the live footage are different from the replays showed later on. But yes you are right in that, it does give the notion of an alternative conspiracy theory and that it is something that the official accounts a.k.a. the official conspiracy theory have not touched on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 14:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Even if Si lapu lapu were correct in there being a contradiction, the entire section is unsourced and qualifies as WP:OR. There needs to be a WP:RS which notes the contradiction. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Quick question: Did a plane hit the tower or not? KyuuA4 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Here's another point. Speculation over differences of view from different camera angles is WP:trivia. It is natural different camera angles showing the event to have different views and viewing angles. KyuuA4 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes it may be trivia. But the contradictions are too great to actually be due to differing camera angles!! Take the footage (that I assume- taking that you are all knowledgable of the events of 9-11- you all know) of the second plane hitting the south tower shown at the trial of Zacarias Mossaoui.. The plane in that footage shows a jetliner approaching the south tower in a level horizontal path. The many other news footages shows the plane literally dive-bombing into the south tower! I do not know why any of you has not noticed any of this!! And no, I am no advocate of the "No-Planes-Used Theory" (a theory which I think is as ridiculous as the government theory). Please go and do your research regarding this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Si lapu lapu (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradicting Flight Paths

A very important anomaly of the event surrounding the moments before and when Flight 175 made impact with the South Tower and one that has not really got the attention of the mainstream media or public is the fact that different news footage shows the plane approaching the tower in different ways. These contradictions went largely unnoticed and supporters of the official 9/11 story dismiss these videos as the work of conspiracy theorists who had edited and manipulated news footage. However these shots were seen live or later replayed on the day the attacks happened.

The first set of contradicting footage shows Flight 175 approaching the South Tower from different directions. In the footage of the live coverage by NBC, the news chopper covering the unfolding events is approximately to the north of the WTC Towers. The North Tower was already struck by Flight 11 as smoke billows out of the impact zone. The two TV news anchors commenting on the developing events do not notice any incoming aircraft but only the explosion and the resulting huge fireball is seen live. From the NBC live footage of the South Tower being hit by Flight 175, no plane can be seen approaching the building from either the right or the left side. Therefore it is then assumed that the aircraft must have approached the towers from a southerly direction since the two big structures would have prevented viewers from seeing the plane approaching its target because only the north faces of the towers are seen on camera. This same footage of the South Tower being hit by the second plane is seen again over and over later on in the day. However, differences could be seen in the same NBC footage. News stations later showed the same footage, but this time with a plane approaching the towers from the right hand side of the shot. The backdrop was also completely gone from the scene. The background consisting of buildings and a body of water can be seen in the live NBC footage but later on, it changes into an empty blue sky backdrop. Later versions of the same live footage seen on the news shows the plane flying in to the shot from the upper right (and with the backdrop reappearing once more in these versions) as oppose to the earlier approaching plane flying in to the scene (with an empty backdrop) at level angle from the middle right. The live shot and the ones shown later on could not be from different helicopters or vantage points since it is the same shot from NBC.

The second set of contradictions are to do with the different angles at which Flight 175 approaches its target. In one video footage showing the towers from underneath the Brooklyn Bridge, the plane's approach to the South Tower is horizontal. This footage was the one used at the trial of alleged 20th hijacker Zacarias Moussaoui. The Moussaoui shot is in contrast to other news footage including one from CBS in which the plane is shown dive-bombing into the building. Another CBS shot later replayed on news stations features the Empire State Building in the middle of the shot and the WTC Towers to the left and further away from where the camera was. This is presumably the same as the earlier CBS footage but from a different angle and vantage point. Again, the plane is seen dive-bombing from the upper right corner of the video to the middle left where the towers are standing. The blatant contradiction can be easily spotted when all the three mentioned shots are played together at the same time.

[edit] Poor taste image

200px|right Image removed due to "poor taste". Does anyone else object to this? I'll have to admit; the image does bring a chill to my spine. Other images were included in the infobox, like the pre-impact view ABC news had; however, such were removed due to copyright reasons, or other similar reasons. Suppose, if anyone can provide some kind of image to be used in the infobox, that would be nice too. KyuuA4 (talk) 08:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You may not agree with my reasoning, but it is a very-grainy, copyrighted image, so it should be removed anyway. The exact frame may not exist elsewhere, but surely similar free images can be found. - BillCJ (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Eh, it's OK. Like I said, that still particular image does give me the chills. Therefore, I moved the public domain image up to the infobox. Then took in the crash sequence image used in the 9/11 article. As "gory" as it looks, an image depicting the "event" is needed to fully illustrate the article. None of us can avoid the fact that it happened. KyuuA4 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Rubin sabotage - Golbez Vendetta

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Airlines_Flight_175&diff=187061974&oldid=186913367

PLEASE research. The statements I made reflect reality.

  • MICHAEL HEZARKHANI VIDEO -- the jet did not VISIBLY disintegrate (yes, it *is* strange, and that *must* be the reason why Arthur Rubin will not accept it. It is OBVIOUSLY a debatable point WHY it DID NOT VISIBLY disintegrate, but the fact remains that there are NO FILM or photos that shows ANY disintegration, whereas common sense *COULD* tell us that at least the wing tips and vertical stabilizer would deform and large parts would visibly stay OUTSIDE the building.

Whether you like it or not. THERE WAS NO VISIBLE DISINTEGRATION. The plane "buttered" into the tower. If you argue that this is because of its high speed... well, try your luck. There is NO WAY the jet was flying at 545mph... because in the dense air at 400feet or so it would tear the airframe apart. Also the ENGINE blades would not be able to cope with the amount of air and would act as AIR BRAKES.. I'd say 300mph tops. But be that as it may... the fact remains THERE WAS NO VISIBLE DISINTEGRATION. You just cannot say that without violating Wikipedia policies on accuracy.

  • CARMEN TAYLOR PHOTO I separated the sentences to avoid the misleading formulation that would make people believe that there Carmen Taylor also FILMED the event. She only took photos. This must be made clear.


sorry, forgot to sign 124.197.2.220 (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

YOUR photos may have been edited, but the jet DID visibly disintegrate in most of the videos. Your statements about airspeed at low altitudes are known to be false. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You CANNOT show us a single photo or film that shows ANY disintegraiton of the aircraft. My statements about airspeed are known to be false? How so? Just look in the Boeing manual.

You seem to have a political agenda. 124.197.2.220 (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot show us a single film that FAILS to show the jet visibly disintegrating. I've seen a number of them. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is the film that FAILS to show the disintegration! I'll show you more... there is at least two more that make it plain to anyone with eyes. Remember that the vertical stabilizer assembly is the strongest part of these airframes. If you care to check, there is not a single air-crash where the rear end of such a jet has disintegrated. Rather the opposite. in 9 out of ten cases it is actually ENTIRELY intact. 124.197.2.220 (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Will someone tell me why the hell this matters? --Golbez (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think about it, the reason why this is so contentious is that it proves there was no plane .... it was either a hologram or a video fake. The **hologram** is REALLY hard to believe, and the video-trick COULD be easy to disprove. The perpetrators did **it** exactly for those reasons. The logic in inescapable. Whacko? I quote John Kenneth Galbraith: Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. You see, rather than following the logic and accepting the consequence that it was an inside job – most people get busy trying to explain it away. This is why you find dubious pictures of airplane debris (wrong paint job, never verified serial number) and why you see wikipedia editors trying hard to edit away any hint. For whatever reason people are hell-bent on keeping the official conspiracy theory alive... maybe it's "inner comfort" that drives them. To me it is unfathomable that wikipedia, the greatest lie detector on earth, has not yet included FACTS ABOUT 911 in the MAIN articles. One day this will look so silly. If you have UNDERSTANDABLY trouble believing in a hologramme, then look at the footage of Luc Courchesne and the missing wing and distorted aircraft. here or here. Of course the incredible look of the aircraft will be blamed on a worn vhs tape. But can a videotape really warp images that unevenly? Strains credulity. More likely it was a flickering hologramme. Here is a critical look at nearly all of the other videos!! And, yes, many conspiracy theorists are nuts. You have to ignore many of their wild statements and stay with the facts. The world is not difficult to deconstruct with the help of the internet community. 124.197.2.220 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
y... you can't be bloody serious. If you continue to edit war to put your edits in, based on this statement, I will block you for vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hologram or not. Plane debris WAS found in the WTC wreckage. KyuuA4 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
yes, but the serial numbers were never recorded, there is no proof at all that is is indeed from UA 175. If you cannot imagine why this would be, let me spell it out for you. The US military operation "911" was done with the the utmost in deception, as is usual in military covert operations. If they used NO PLANES, as seems to be the case, this naturally would have involved the planting of aircraft debris to make the hologrammes believable. I URGE YOU TO READ. Not just "scan" the words and then knee-jerk dismiss. (also see my addition above .. re: Street engine, in answer to RenesisX ... 203.172.184.19 (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am bloody serious. How dare you put your value judgement on my opinion? If you are for freedom of research and in favour of peer-review you should not a priori denigrate my findings without showing evidence of your own. Let the evidence speak for itself. Your threat of blocking me is duly noted and I will pursue arbitration for your behaviour if it continues. IMHO it would disqualify you as an editor on wikipedia. 203.172.184.19 (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)