Talk:American Airlines Flight 77

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
 * What would you suggest we use instead? --John (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * their husband Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

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)

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)
 * Attacks on military facilities are not normally referred to as "terrorism". Why should this one be? --John (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And we have WP:TERRORIST as well. --John (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2015
"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)

❌ - 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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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).
 * 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)
 * 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)

"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)


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

Another photo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.222.213 (talk) 02:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080803015816/http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image%3AHijackers_Timeline_OCR.pdf to http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image%3AHijackers_Timeline_OCR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211203506/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41400106/ns/us_news-security/ to http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41400106/ns/us_news-security/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080802031006/http://www.edgewood.army.mil/hld/dl/MFM_Capstone_August_2005.pdf to http://www.edgewood.army.mil/hld/dl/MFM_Capstone_August_2005.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511221056/http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml to http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080501110315/http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml to http://www.judicialwatch.org/5965.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208062128/http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/4821121.html to http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/4821121.html

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

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

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)
 * 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)


 * 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)

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)

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
 * AA77 9.11.01.jpg

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)