Talk:American Airlines Flight 77

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Airlines Flight 77 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about American Airlines Flight 77. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about American Airlines Flight 77 at the Reference desk.

American Airlines Flight 77 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 11, 2015.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 24, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 11, 2007.

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: September 11 / History High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).

United States History High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History articles

High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Aviation: Accidents

	Aviation portal 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.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
	This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as High-importance).

Death: Suicide Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Section sizes

Section size for American Airlines Flight 77 (21 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	4,442	4,442
Background	5,468	5,468
Hijackers	10,840	12,755
Suspected accomplices	1,915	1,915
Flight	4,193	12,513
Boarding and departure	8,320	8,320
Hijacking	5,756	10,174
Calls	4,418	4,418
Crash	17,331	17,331
Rescue and recovery	7,340	19,222
Remains	5,257	5,257
Flight recorders	3,483	3,483
Continuity of operations	3,142	3,142
Aftermath	1,968	10,536
Security camera videos	3,402	3,402
Memorials	5,166	5,166
Nationalities of victims on the aircraft	857	857
See also	130	130
References	48	542
Works cited	494	494
External links	2,595	2,595
Total	96,565	96,565

Suggest we change: the emotive language & phone call falsity.

' Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard made telephone calls to loved ones and relayed information on the hijacking. '

I gather that there was allegedly, only one passenger call. Imo, 'loved ones' is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Beingsshepherd (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

What would you suggest we use instead? --John (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

their husband Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

I had copied the same text as quoted above and, based on the format of other wiki articles, I felt that there should either be a citation or a 'Citation needed' note. The point about singular vs. plural strikes me as valid. John Champagne (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not killed in action

Lieutenant Mari-Rae Sopper, USNR, was killed on the plane. But she was not the first "Navy Judge Advocate ever killed in action". This was terrorism, not war.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on military facilities are not normally referred to as "terrorism". Why should this one be? --John (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And we have WP:TERRORIST as well. --John (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing, most attacks aren't on office buildings that house the paperwork. 69.121.144.8 (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cell phones

The article incorrectly claims that cell phone calls were made from the plane, but this is physically impossible. In order for a cell phone to connect to a tower, the plane could not have been traveling at faster than 150-160 mph, and the evidence used in the article itself indicates that it was not traveling at this speed during the times the calls supposedly occurred. An examination of the flight data for the plane indicates that after the hijacking time the plane never had a speed of under 0.5 Mach, well too fast to work. Wikipedia is a place for verified truth, not propaganda.174.73.5.74 (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources indicate otherwise. Please do not insert your personal analysis into the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely possible to have short phone conversations using a cell phone, at that speed. It all depends on the cell phone technology, and layout of the cell phone towers in the area. I am a FCC certified radio tech, and have worked several cellular projects.

Seems like many people know someone affected by 9-11. I worked at Hughes Space and Communications (Boeing Space by then) and was on vacation during 9-11, at my girlfriends house in Yucaipa. Then the news started of the crashes. Who do I know? I don't know anyone personally, but Chad and Reuben died on flight 77, and they worked in the same division that I worked, in El Segundo. RIP Chad and Reuben.

https://rapidcityjournal.com/local-woman-loses-grandson-in-pentagon-crash/article_9233b6f7-4813-5faa-b00d-44bfd5d930e7.html

https://pentagonmemorial.org/explore/biographies/ruben-s-ornedo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruderod (talk • contribs) 13:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style problems

There are a number of references of the form "Goldberg, et al., p. nn". We need to choose a consistent style; either Harvard references, moving the page numbers up into the article, or some other consistent format so that each reference is self-contained. In fact, the most complete Goldberg reference is not the first. I assume that the only Goldberg reference is the official report, but someone should check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/American Airlines Flight 77 --sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 07:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown to the hijackers

"unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard made telephone calls to loved ones and relayed information on the hijacking"

Citation is needed here. I'm pretty sure the hijackers were aware that the US civilians were using their cell phones but didn't really care. There was at least one hijacker outside the cockpit during the takeover and for the full extent of the plane trip. He would have seen/heard people talking on their cell phones.This article needs to stop making assumptions about what the hijackers may have known or not known.

24.239.124.101 (talk) 07:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you're mentioning is supported by references either.--MONGO 07:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Unknown to the hijackers, passengers aboard made telephone calls to loved ones and relayed information on the hijacking."

please remove "Unknown to the hijackers" from the above sentence in the introduction. THis is an unrealistic assumption that is not backed by any evidence. This is an article not a speculation piece. thank you. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 07:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - this is well documented, with references, in the hijacking section - the lead is just a summary of the article, - Arjayay (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the not done, but I would recommend you open a discussion on this item for possible rewording. This is a subjective statement since it is not possible to know with absolute certainty that the hijackers were aware of the possibility of the passengers making phone calls. In fact, on flight 93 they didn't seem concerned with in flight phone calls. On flight 77, according to one passenger she believed the hijackers were unaware of her phone calls in the rear of the cabin. Since there doesn't appear to be any corroboration with this one witness, the statement might read like, "Indifference by the hijackers allowed passengers aboard to make telephone calls and relay information on the hijackers". The 911 commission report doesn't provide any further details on whether the hijackers were or were not aware of the calls on flight 77 from what I read in the main report. However, I have not gone into the supporting material to find a more definitive answer (if there is one). Inomyabcs (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Praise for this TFA

Whoever wrote this and improved it to FA status, good work! Also, good timing for the TFA. Epic Genius (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great work

This is one of the best articles I have seen. Good job, guys. I don't know why some people keep putting "allegedly" on the article. Seriously, it was DEFINITELY American Airlines 77, NOT a missile. The missile notion is a conspiracy theory. To the people who keep adding "allegedly" on the article, stop now. We have to keep the article in a neutral point of view. Adding "allegedly" showing that people believe the missile theory shows a sign of bias, and that is unacceptable to Wikipedia's policies. MattChatt18 (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing of the controversy around these events.

By far everyone agrees with the official accord of events on 911, the same goes for AA flight 77. There is much dispute on what actually hit the Pentagon that day. If it was an airplane or a missile. This needs to be discussed otherwise this article is one-sided hence meaningless in an encyclopedian context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.220.180.61 (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You want 9/11 conspiracy theories, and most conspiracy enthusiasts don't buy into the Pentagon missile business since it doesn't support their notions of how and why the WTC collapsed. There is no dispute in reliable sources about AA 77, so there is no dispute in the article on the event. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Totally agree with Acroterion's comments above. Wikipedia articles are no place for conspiracy theories. David J Johnson (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree as well. We need to keep the article in a neutral point of view. All sources support American Airlines Flight 77, NOT a missile. Adding conspiracy theories is a sign of bias, as I stated on the previous section, and is discouraged by Wikipedia's policies as it does have the high potential of being false. So I suggest you people stop adding the word "allegedly" on the article. You may add the conspiracy theory on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, but NOT on the article about the actual thing. MattChatt18 (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Neutral" ? How can it be neutral if you only present the contentious and laughable official 'facts' ? Surely you have to allow both sides of the argument for it to be 'neutral' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.7.64.51 (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

116.7.63.51 Please take your conspiracy theories elsewhere (there is even sites on Wikipedia), this is a encyclopedia and not a "9/11 Truth" site. Also if you have to contribute sign any comment in the usual way. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

86.18.9.185 (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No mention of conspiracy theories.

As we all know there are alternative versions of this event (often referred to emotively as "conspiracy theories"). As they are well documented I feel mention, at least that they exist, must be made in this article. Currently the fact that no reference is made to them gives an impression of someone dictating how the story must be told. Surely that is against all that Wikipedia stands for?

I would assume that pages on the moon landings, JFK assassination etc make reference to alternative theories, or at least that they exist? Something very wrong if they don't.86.18.9.185 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read the above, there is already mention of "conspiracy theories" in 9/11 conspiracy theories, plus JFK theories. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dealing in reliable secondary sources and not a forum for outlandish theories. And please sign any "contribution" you might make. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another photo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.222.213 (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dramatization

I wonder if there should be a section about the documentaries that have been made about this flight. One I'm thinking of is the Mayday (TV series), season 16 episode 2. It is common at least when it comes to that series that in the flight articles there is a mention that there has been an episode. But still I'm not sure if it's notable enough, so that's why I'm asking here. Qwerty21212121 (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalities of people on the plane

This section currently includes this text: "NOTE: This list does not include the nationalities of the five hijackers."

This statement is vague and leaves the question unanswered as to whether or not the five hijackers are included in the count/list at all. Checking elsewhere in the article I see that there were 64 people aboard Flight 77, and only 59 counted in this list. Suggest that the note be changed to read: "NOTE: This list does not include the five hijackers." After all, it wasn't the nationalities of the hijackers that was omitted, but the all data regarding the hijackers (count and nationality). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.68.112 (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American Airlines Flight 77. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100910035010/http://www.burohappold.com/BH/PRJ_BLD_pentagon_memorial.aspx to http://www.burohappold.com/BH/PRJ_BLD_pentagon_memorial.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American Airlines Flight 77. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are the terms "soldier" and "sailor" used for officers?

The article currently includes this sentence:

The U.S. Army suffered 75 fatalities—53 civilians (47 employees and six contractors) and 22 soldiers—while the U.S. Navy suffered 42 fatalities—nine civilians (six employees and three contractors) and 33 sailors.

It seems that we're using the terms "soldiers" and "sailors" to include both enlisted and officer ranks. Isn't the convention to use those terms only for enlisted service members? TypoBoy (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The data appears to have been taken from the names of the victims listed in that source referenced on the pages of Goldberg's book. Not sure why it has to be broken down into enlisted and commissioned servicemembers.--MONGO (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we should break it down into enlisted and commissioned servicemembers. I'm saying that I think the terms "soldier" and "sailor" mean enlisted servicemembers, so we shouldn't use them for groups that include both enlisted and commissioned servicemembers. I think we should use a term that can apply to both the E-ranks and the O-ranks. Like "servicemember", if that's a word. (My browser keeps underlining it.)

Am I mistaken? Do people call an admiral "a sailor", as we're doing here? It sounds funny to me. TypoBoy (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines no longer flies from Washington Dulles to Los Angeles

"Since September 11, American Airlines continues to fly from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles International Airport and renumbered the flight number from "77" to "149". As of September 2018, the flight number was changed again from "149" to "252", now using a Boeing 737-800, departing at 07:27."

This is no longer the case as of January 2022. A quick look at flightware.com shows that American Airlines no longer fly the Washington-Dulles to Los Angeles International Airport route and instead all American flights to LAX use Washington Ronald Regan National Airport.

https://flightaware.com/live/findflight/KIAD/KLAX

https://flightaware.com/live/findflight?origin=KDCA&destination=KLAX

So it was. Dawsongfg (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

AA77 9.11.01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing "hover description"

When you hover over the article and the preview pops up, should that section be blank? I like Astatine (Talk to me) 18:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]