Talk:Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks/Archive 1

New 9/11 Article???
in the timeline section of the table, the earliest timeline dates back to the planning. should there be a timeline article of the time dating to 1980, when the "Road To 9/11" began? (according to The Nationsl Geographic Channel documetary "Inside 9/11") Stormy41992 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Stormy41992

The broader evidence points to a more historically congruent 'road to 9/11' if documentaries such as "9/11 Ripple Effect" are likewise included in the conversation. View it once and decide for yourself if the documented history of what are called "False Flag Operations" includes the attacks of 9/11. The U.S. goverment is controlled by faceless vote-immune economic interests. What reasons exist for any sane person to believe that the current straits in which we reside are any different from those in our all-too-familiar past? ResearchALLwars (talk) 03:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

BBC
Why no mention of BBC and/or CNN reporting the collapse of the Salomon Bros. Bldg. (WTC 7) a full 20 minutes in advance? http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html The building is not mentioned on the BBC's timeline.

To report that a building had collapsed before it had done so would be an odd sort of error, wouldn't it? Probably a bit like reporting that the Lord Mayor's trousers had fallen down before they did so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.200.76 (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Fully fueled
The article describes the 767s as "fully fueled." That is incorrect. They were each carrying around 10,000 gallons of fuel, less than half their capacity. A 767-200ER has a range of over 6,000 miles, so their planned trans-continental flights were less than half their range, requiring half the fuel.

The 707-340, a collision from which the towers were designed to survive, has a fuel capacity of 23,000 gallons, and the aircraft is similar in weight and dimensions to the 767-200. — 198.129.64.227 22:35, 10 March 2003 (UTC)


 * Please be bold in fixing gross inaccuracies in wikipedia articles. Martin


 * I don't think "fully fueled" is really incorrect here. The planes carried enough fuel for their coast-to-coast flights. Although their fuel capacities were greater, these planes on these routes would never have had much more fuel than they had at impact. JDG 18:12 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

-Why not just use the fact in the article and have done with it? Saying something like...'On impact, the 767s were carrying approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel; while about half the capacity of the 767s fuel tanks, the fuel proved more than sufficient to ignite combustibles in the WTC tower, and, ultimately, steel whose fireproofing had been blown off, and led to the tower's demise.' (Now, that sample writing, of course, presumes that the facts themselves are accurate.) This way, we don't have to argue the semantics of whether the planes were fully fueled - we've simply provided the fact and left that interpretation to the reader. — 65.200.81.130 13:39, 7 July 2003 (UTC)

On the U.N. International Day of Peace: See U.N. Peaceday 2003. There is a PDF link to UN Resolution 55/282 which states that as of 1981, the International Day of Peace was the third Tuesday of every September (which would make it September 18, 2001); and as of 2002, the date would be changed to be September 21, every year. Skybunny 23:20, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand... Bleh. Now I've run across this press release, which, in fact, is a message from Kofi Annan, for September 11. *sigh* Well, I see why they made it September 21 from there on out; UN Resolution 55/14 changed the opening day of the General Assembly 'to the Tuesday following the second Monday in September'; and the day the GA met used to automatically be the Day of Peace. Eeek. My bad. Since the 'day of peace' was on a day's scope (rather than hours, minutes, etc.), I added it back instead to here: Timeline_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_Terrorist_Attack. Hope that works for all. — Skybunny 18:00, 23 September 2003 (UTC)

I have had a hard time wrapping my head around all the information in strict chronological order. Would there be some benefit in splitting the timeline into five columns - one for clock time, and one for each of the planes? Then, as planes crashed, those columns could be used to discuss their targets. Information unrelated to a particular plane/target could span the four columns. Thoughts? Other ideas on a clearer presentation? -- Ke4roh 01:46, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that's actually a great idea...I'd been mulling the idea in my own mind, but what I was having trouble with was how the presentation might be done that still makes it relatively reasonable to edit afterward. Tables? (Some other way?) The fact that this discussion has to even happen is probably a good indication of how much good information this page is gaining. Maybe if you came up with something and put it in a test area for people to look at? As for the headers, how about: the four planes, movement of the President, and other?Skybunny 13:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know - we've had the current format for so long - do we really want to change it on a whim? PMA 06:45, Jan 15, 2004 (UTC)

Just did a little tweak--the previous phrasing "there are exemptions for Saudi families who fear retribution if they stay in the United States" makes it sound like any Saudi family that feared retribution could fill out the right forms and get on a plane.

-Daniel Cristofani. 130.94.161.238 09:51, 15 June 2004 (UTC)

09:16: several senior staff members
09:16 has "several senior staff members". Were these school staff or White House Staff? Andy Mabbett 18:20, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

--

I've removed some recently added Flight 93 data as I feel this belongs to the Flight 93 page. The thing to remember is not to have too much detail on a timeline page, and I feel that what was added here by Skybunny, whilst quite correct, was nonetheless excessive. Arno 07:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The thing about Bush writing in his diary I think should be removed... how do we know he wrote that?


 * I agree. I'll remove it unless someone can verify it. Here's the text:

22:21: Before going to sleep, Bush writes in his diary. "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."

--Thorns Among Our Leaves 22:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Bush definitely wrote it. See Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43708-2002Jan26&notFound=true :I'm reinstating it in article. JDG 00:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Shorter Article Name
Article name needs to be shorter for easier linkage to this article. KyuuA4 16:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one...
''09:03: President George W. Bush enters an Emma E. Booker Elementary School classroom in Sarasota, Florida, as part of a scheduled visit to promote education and the Bush administration education policies. Bush is (only) aware that a commercial airline has struck one of the World Trade Center towers and elects to continue his schedule for the moment.''

Can anyone verify this?

--Thorns Among Our Leaves 22:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, only one plane had hit the WTC at the time. TheCoffee 09:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I was the one who wrote that. There are a few sources out there that have tracked the movements of GWB that have indicated that Bush was told as he arrived at the school that one plane had hit one tower, and that the consensus or assumption was that it was an accident. That changed in the famous photo where Andrew Card whispers 'A second plane's hit the trade center and America's under attack'. Logically, Bush would have to have known that a first plane had been hit for that to make sense, and must have made the decision to continue his schedule to do so. Skybunny 17:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its worse than that. GWB claimed TWICE that he watched the first Tower impact on TV. It had to be in his satellite feed equipped limo, because there were no TVs at the school. besides which, it was a couple of days before the fireman tape of the North Tower impact was produced.

"And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."" GWB 4/12/01, Town Hall Meeting, Aired December 4, 2001 - 15:18   ET, CNN, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html

School Principal Gwen Rigell when asked about this recounted in a Propaganda Matrix posting "Absolutely not. There was no TV in the corridor or anywhere near that classroom." Bush then repeated this version of events a second time, at an even in California.

"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack." GWB 5/01/01 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html

The statements come from the White House website itself, not to mention being broadcast on CNN national TV live. This is one of many aspects of the attacks that simply make little sense, and lead many researchers to conclude 'something fishy' happened on that day, and it may not have been the big surprise we were all told - kinda like Pearl Harbor, in fact. More or less everyone admit that was a stitch up these days. An event engineered to stir up blood lust among the general American populace. Timharwoodx 11:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Dorval International Airport
Please do not change the name or link for Montréal-Dorval International Airport. It was that when 9/11 happened. SNIyer12 00:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is a flawed article
There are many apparent mistakes. For instance this entry:


 * 08:46: Two F-15 fighter jets are scrambled from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts, intended to destroy the hijacked airplanes in mid-air before any target is reached by such hijacked planes. Coincidentally, the two jets were completely fueled up before any scramble orders though there was no apparent reason for a full fuel tank otherwise. Because flight 11's transponder is off, United States Air Force pilots do not know which direction to travel in to meet the plane. NEADS spends the next several minutes watching their radar scopes in anticipation of flight 11 returning a radar contact.

How could they know the hijackers had any targets before even the north tower was hitted?


 * Good point, and it's fixed now to say 'intercept' rather than 'destroy'. The Congressional 9/11 report mentions these planes, but only in the context of intercepting them. Skybunny 16:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Flight 77 : spotted on radar, attempt to intercept?
I saw a National Geographic documentary about that flight. Apparently controllers saw the plane coming back and going over the restricted airspace. Apparently, air fighters were ordered to depart for possible interception. Can anyone back this upEvilbu 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why was all of 10:00 AM deleted?
It appears a new article has been redirected for information about the collapse of the World Trade Center, but a lot of information not related to that (like flight 93's crash) has been deleted. Does anyone know why? Skybunny 05:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Found the 10AM section was vandalized a few edits ago. Back now, good eyes -- MrDolomite 05:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

saudi families
I've deleted this outright: ", but there are exemptions for certain Saudi families, who fear retribution if they stay in the United States"

It is demonstrably false. From the 9/11 Commission report:

First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.

— 24.12.102.160 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

add a link to videos of news from the day.
I have found a youtube member who has posted a large amount of videos of news from the day (with some holes in the cnn covereage), would it be ok to add the link? I am asking this as it could be used as a video timeline of the day's events. — 202.161.8.182 17:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pipeline Video
CNN is streaming a video on its pipeline service of the televised reports from 9/11. I am reconciling all of the times given with the times given on the video. — Hybrid1486 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
''The September 11, 2001 attacks, in addition to being a unique act of aggression, constituted a media event on a scale not seen since the advent of civilian global satellite links, round-the-clock television news organizations and the instant worldwide reaction and debate made possible by the Internet. As a result, most of the events listed below were known by a large portion of the planet's population in near realtime.''
 * does anybody think that this commentry is perhaps in the wrong place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kransky (talk • contribs) 15:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WTC 2nd attack.JPG
Image:WTC 2nd attack.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 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 19:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Seconds after first plane.JPG
Image:Seconds after first plane.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a minor contradiction here...
8:34: A third transmission from Flight 11: "Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves." Boston Center contacts Otis Air National Guard Base at Cape Cod through the FAA's Cape Cod facility, on the hijacking of Flight 11.

8:37:52: Boston Center control notifies NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector), the northeast sector of NORAD, of the hijacking of Flight 11, the first notification received by the military at any level that American 11 had been hijacked. The controller requests military help to intercept the jetliner.

It first says that the Air National Guard was notified at 8:34 and then says that at 8:37 was the "first notification received by the military at any level".

--71.33.23.161 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too... now, almost 2 years later. The NORAD recordings show 8:37:52 at the time the first call came in from Boston Center. (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?currentPage=2) Calling NORAD happened at that time. There are a few sources that refer to the previous FAA call to Otis (for example http://web.archive.org/web/20020917072642/http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020603/avi_stor.htm), and in the book Touching History by Lynn Spencer, the time is given as 8:34 AM. I'll fix the error. Dcs002 (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just read on page 20 of the 9/11 Commission report almost the exact quote that contained this apparent contradiction. It mentions the 8:34 call to Otis, then the 8:37:52 call to NEADS, saying the call to NEADS was the "first notification received by the military at any level". I guess that's where this contradiction got started. At least we know. It most likely didn't come from sloppy editing by more than one editor, just an uncritical cut & paste from an otherwise decent source. Dcs002 (talk) 20:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixing a mistake in a quotation and providing sources (Repost from discussion on talk page with user in question)
Something doesn't seem correct in the grammar of this sentence. Can you please provide me with a link or a source so I can verify the information. That is why I added the [sic] and citation required. If there is no proper reference for this information I believe it should be removed per wikipedia's policy. I'm posting a copy of this message on the discussion page of the related article. (Please see the related related changes you made here). --CyclePat (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything wrong with the grammar, but the fact tag probably should remain. Sorry about removing it, but you made an unrelated edit at the same time which I found clearly incorrect.  I should have restored the fact tag.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

very important witness
I think that this part should be added as a fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDGfgi7P1Jw&watch_response There was smoke on the ground level even before 1st plain hit the building: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voSehOczi6E http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTXFnAIP6A0&NR=1

8:46:28: William Rodriguez working about 20 years in WTC and other employees from level B1 hear strong explosion in building's undergrounds somewhere between B2 and B2 level. Explosion throws them up. On films from the catastrophe there is smoke coming from low levels of the building.

Why we need to keep always version of the officials? Do we need to always follow by the 'official version'? Everybody knows already who is responsible for war in Iraq, who was G. W. Bush grandfather and other such things. But NOT wikipedia - wikipedia always keep it official - even when scientists are opposite to politicians - wikipedia keeps political version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astropata (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Youtube is not a source we can use, as video editing is so easy these days.
 * Rodriguez said "a few seconds", not a specific number, and, even if he had said a specific number, subtracting the time from the observed impact time is WP:SYN.
 * There are no "scientists" opposing the mainsteam (not political) view.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me. Doesn't common sense tell us that a large amount of falling debris (some of it burning) would have made it to the street level.  The video even shows vehicles on fire in what looks like a parking lot.  Look at the impact videos and notice that debris from both impacts comes from the buildings.  And don't you think an impact such as this would have been felt thru the entire sturcture including the basement.  Again use your common sense. Conspiracy theories have reached a new level of insanity with this whole thing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.35.35 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed to military time
I thought I would be bold here, So I changed the times from am-pm to military time eg: 13:00 to 23:00.-- intraining  Jack In  08:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn;t seem to be a reason to show military time, but if it does, shouldn't it be without the colon? 162.136.193.1 (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Time of the second impact - discrepancies
While putting together a video archive of the four major networks' coverage the morning of 9-11, I noted that the second impact (2 WTC) occurs at 09:02 and about 55 seconds. Keeping in mind that Wiki articles are based upon verifiable print sources (MOST of the time!), I went and checked the 9-11 Commission Report. Sure enough, it places the time of the second impact at 09:03 and 11 seconds. Which are we to believe? Our eyes (believe me, I was glued to the tv in our barracks in Korea when it happened!), or the official report, which seems to be a bit off on the time? For this reason, I'd say "call it 09:03". Edit Centric (talk) 09:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The TV networks keep very accurate time codes in their broadcasts, to the 10th of a second (these time codes are in the bottom 45 lines of the 525-line image that do not normally appear on television screens). These are kept accurate to synchronize studio and remote pickups with affiliate stations. I would trust the network time codes. I don't know where the 9/11 Commission got its time; possibly from a time stamp on an emergency transmission, which would explain why it was a few seconds later. — Walloon (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, what I've noticed is that there IS a few seconds difference between networks. For instance, FOX shows 09:02:56, ABC shows 09:02:58. It's only a few off, but still way before the 09:03:11 stated in the official report. Again, I think it's safe to round it up (or down, depending on your source) to 09:03 for article purposes. Edit Centric (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Otis Air National Guard Base
It's Otis Air National Guard Base, not Otis Air Force Base. I made 3 or 4 corrections in the timeline.

I also looked up info on the 8:34 call from Boston Center to Otis and elaborated on it just a bit. References for this are Touching History by Lynn Spencer and an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology. (Url's given in "There seems to be a minor contradiction here..." section above.)

A variety of sources give the scramble order at Otis as 8:46 (e.g., Vanity Fair, boston.com), and the lift-off time of the F15s as 8:52 (CNN, Washington Post). I changed the lift-off time from 8:53 to 8:52. I think the time 8:53 might have originated from the 9/11 Commission report, which says that radar indicated them airborne at 8:53. There is a short lag between the time the plane leaves the ground and the time the plane is picked up on radar. Dcs002 (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality towards media organizations
This article does not appear to adhere WP's neutrality guidelines when it comes to media organizations. There are a number of items that seem to highlight mistakes made by CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times that were, in fact, mistakes made by many media organizations on that day. I'm not suggesting this is deliberate attempt by News Corp to represent other organizations as inferior, but it appears that way and should be corrected.

Despite the live camera feed at that moment clearly showing the second plane fly into the second tower, CNN assumed that the explosion seen was caused when the fuselage of the first plane, which they believed was still lodged inside the North Tower, exploded. Even after saying this, they did not attempt to explain then as to how this would cause the second tower to also catch fire. Even eyewitness Winston Mitchell agreed with this theory, although even he did not actually see what happened. They stayed with this assumption for a while before other sources and eyewitnesses were able to convince them that it was actually a plane that had hit the South Tower. Even after this, CNN still did not choose to believe the most possible theory (that of a terrorist attack), and instead tried to suggest the idea that both planes' slamming into both towers was caused by a failure of navigational systems.

This paragraph is purely assumptive on the information that CNN had at the moment of the report and should be removed.

Many newspapers (including The New York Times) mistakenly print that this is the first time flights have been suspended.

Why is The New York Times the only newspaper singled out? Either every newspaper that printed this should be listed (as a separate article) or none should.

Even so, CNN continued to believe, even long after the collapse, that some kind of third explosion had caused the collapse rather than structural failure.

Again, this is speculative and should be removed.

9:39: Fox News Channel reports, "We we are hearing -- right now but another explosion that -- has taken place. At the Pentagon."[9]

9:39: NBC and MSNBC report an explosion at the Pentagon.

All news organizations who make a report at the same minute should be listed under that entry. Alphabetical order is preferred to avoid bias.

Later in the day several commentators and journalists, most notably ABC's Peter Jennings, express frustration with Bush's seemingly random movements. After the arrival in Nebraska, Jennings asks Ann Compton, the ABC correspondent on the scene, exactly where the President is. She answers, "He has disappeared down the rabbit hole, Peter."[16]

It should also be noted that the general public and the news media need not be aware of the Presidents movements during a national crisis for matters of national security. 12.129.136.5 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is good and cited, but should be moved to the time when it actually occurred (approx 15:00 EDT).

This is such an important article that it shouldn't be tainted by politics. Perhaps there should be an article on the news coverage of 9/11 so that we can move items that don't actually pertain to the time line off the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argonaut05 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

9:59:04
"CNN continued to believe, even long after the collapse, that some kind of third explosion had caused the collapse rather than structural failure."

source for this? i am going to remove it if no source is provided, it feels like the usual conspiracy theorist is trying to sneak in to add some authority to their ramblings... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.66.170 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FNC ticker

 * 10:49: Fox News Channel is the first of the United States news networks to implement a news ticker at the bottom of its screen for supplementary information about the attacks. CNN adds one at 11:11, and MSNBC adds one at approximately 2:00 pm. All three cable networks have used a news ticker continuously in the years since (and many local TV stations have followed suit).

What's the story behind this major change in broadcasting? Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

One eyewitness saw the plane coming in from the South
One eyewitness saw the plane coming in from the South (from New Jersey) perhaps heading towards the Empire State Building, but changing direction over Manhattan, and making a sharp right turn, then a left turn into the South Tower, apparently at a speed much less than 590 mph.( undo)The Original Wildbear (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 378286358 by Cgersten (talk) Please provide a source)

I was the eyewitness!tuco_bad 18:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)


 * The issue is that a source is needed, not an identification of the eyewitness. Please read Verifiability.  Personal experiences do not meet the criteria. &mdash; MrDolomite &bull; Talk 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes - I realize that, just wanted it in the record, even if immediately removed. Thanks. tuco_bad 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC) cgersten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Timeline
The timeline is completely off. How do I know this? Just watching the Today show feed they are reporting things (like, The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and more importantly the attack on the Pentagon well, well, well before it is listed to occur here.) I can only imagine if the Today show utterly destroys this timeline that it is probably riddled with errors concerning all the other news organziations. 64.89.250.85 (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

A 10 year old edited video hardly challenges what is recorded here. J.Rly (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Jo Moore's remarks
As they do not relate to the events directly surrounding the attacks, I'll be removing mention of them if no one objects Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 14:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 01:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Timing
The source for the time of 08:46:40 is the NTSB Flight Path Study from February 2002. The 9/11 commission report (July 2004) repeats this, citing the NTSB. The source for 08:46:30 is NCSTAR 1-9 (November 2008). This is both more thorough and more recent. It discusses the times in detail in section 5.2.3, Timing of Key Events. This presents the times of various events, uncertainties in timing, and the process used to determine when things happened to how many significant figures. This source, both more detailed and more recent, is the one we should use. Alternatively, we should stop fussing with 08:46:40/08:46:30 and report the time as 8:46. If reliable sources make an issue of 08:46:40/08:46:30 then we can look at that, but mainstream sources don't really take this up. If this all seems incomprehensibly fussy and obsessive, do a Google search for "8:46:40" "8:46:30" and see who does take this up. (posted at Talk:Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks and Talk:American Airlines Flight 11.) Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of events following impacts
I'd like to add the following tables (they could also be lists i.e., the format could change)...



Would they be best in the main section (collapsed?) or in new sections referenced from above? Thoughts? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be good to make that easily accessible, but it is a lot of material to add verbatim. Maybe some of the entries could be combined? Tom Harrison Talk 22:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

pr. bush and the nation
my idea --to crate more 2 timelines. what and when pr. bush knew every thing and when the nation knew by radio or tv every thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.196.166.161 (talk) 10:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New film
I couldn't even edit the talkpage of September 11 attacks, so I'm trying it here at least. Might it be noteworthy that a new film shot 11 September 2001 in New York has been published? The difference: It was actually shot right on chemical film.

It was shot by the German Ralf Schuster on Super 8 mm film, and he uploaded it to the Internet Archive: It takes up to 03:15 until the events unfold, but up to then there's general tourist shots of the city, including the Twin Towers. Schuster didn't record the actual plane crashes, but at least the dust cloud caused by the collaps of the towers, from as close as the police let him.

Granted, the current quality of the video is crap because all that Schuster did to transfer his film was do an off-the-wall transfer by pointing a video camera at his projection screen. All that we can see for now is a real insult to the HD-compatible format. If only he'd get a professional telecine, those can look as good as this from Super8: If anybody else wanna heckle Schuster to get a decent telecine of his historical document, here's his website including his e-mail:  --79.193.40.193 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't seem fair for you to call on others to heckle this person. I don't think that's what this page is for. I've sent an email to Mr. Schuster to alert him of this post and give him a chance to respond to it. 71.227.38.199 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120606170236/http://www.wfaa.com/news/remembering-history to http://www.wfaa.com/news/remembering-history
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20040716020324/http://www.mgs.md.gov:80/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf to http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061016072409/http://www.ap.org:80/log/APNewsAlertsandFlashes.pdf to http://www.ap.org/log/APNewsAlertsandFlashes.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060512102228/http://archives.cnn.com:80/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/ to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Image deletion
Commons:Deletion requests/File:George W. Bush being told about second plane hitting WTC.png czar  06:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

24-hour time
Why are we not using the 24-hour time format for this timeline? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JotaJokto (talk • contribs) 16:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Firstly, please sign your contributions. Secondly; the timings are perfectly concise, readable and understandable as stated in the article. David J Johnson (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/nyregion/12about.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C62184%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100807204647/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.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) 22:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks. 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/20160309062753/http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26283109/explosion-at-the-pentagon.htm to http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/26283109/explosion-at-the-pentagon.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Sep2003/feature2.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314015055/http://mikejwilson.com/911/ to http://www.mikejwilson.com/911/

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) 00:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Videos to add
These videos exist:

is it appropriate to add any of these videos to this article with start times at particular timecode of the video? Victor Grigas (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Flight maps vs. descriptions
The maps for AAL11 and UA175 do not match their descriptions in the text. In fact, they appear to be switched. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I corrected this in the article. The takeover point for Flight 11 was correct (according to the NTSB report), but the flight went northwest until turning south along the Hudson River. Flight 175 never went near Albany, and the NTSB assumes the takeover was after the last radio transmission and before the transponder code changed, over northwest New Jersey. See https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_AA11.pdf and https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/Flight_Path_Study_UA175.pdf. --Sam (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Evacuation of WTC7
"Due to the emergency personnel having more than enough time to evacuate the building since the collapse of the North Tower, there are no injuries or deaths as a result of the collapse." This sentence is absurd. NIST: "Most of the occupants initiated their own evacuation shortly after WTC1 was attacked." And: "...the building was safely evacuated prior to the collapse of WTC2." (https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/NCSTAR/ncstar1a.pdf)2A02:120B:2C2B:9CA0:7D0E:49FC:D5A9:825A (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Time discussion
I just wanted to ask one simple question: where did the times of the planes striking the towers come from? Like '8:46:40' or '9:03:00'. I believe that the times are off by only by a bit and I just wanted to discuss the times that were shown in Pavel Hlava's footage of the planes striking the towers, as his times seem to be accurate (and in EDT (or UTC -4:00)), but I'm not sure about if people would accept this change to the article.

Jakanz (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It depends on the sources you look at. The times noted in the series of articles on Wikipedia are the product of extensive discussions about how to address the discrepancies, and shouldn't be changed unless a consensus develops to make a change. I'm looking around for the discussion - it was quite some time ago.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello and all of my fellow Wiki Editors. I was just coming back to check on fellow Wiki Users on whether 9:02 A.M. or 9:03 A.M. was the actual time of the UA 175 Crash into WTC 2, that way we can all develop a consensus and form an opinion on this question some 10 years after this forum was discussed. Most websites including the Official 9/11 Memorial Timeline, As well as the 9/11 Commission and Fema Reports have it as 9:03 A.M. The NIST Report on the Other Hand and a couple of earlier sources have the time such as the National Transportation Safety Board (NSTB) have the time as 9:02 A.M. I personally believe the attack time was 9:03 A.M. The official timeline on the 9/11 memorial website as well as the History Channel and more current sources in the 2010's agree with that notion. In addition a slight majority TV and Video Times, (Including CNN, Fox News, CBS, WNYW, NY1, etc), all tend to show the crash happening at 9:03 A.M. on the button. . Therefore I personally feel that 9:03:00 on the button like before is a good general consensus time And above all I was wondering if we could develop a general consensus on this matter thanks.Miked1992 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Miked1992Miked1992 (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmike92092 (talk • contribs)
 * Stop using undisclosed multiple accounts and since your edits have been repeatedly challenged, gain consensus for them on article talkpage before adding them back.--MONGO (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Mongo, Since we both share a mutual agreement to avoid a personal edit war. I was just wondering how I could properly form a new consensus on the WTC Crash and Collapse times. Should I (A. Write a Paragraph), (B. Find and Share New Sources in a Talk Page Forum), as just a couple of ideas. I Hope to hear back from you or Arcoterian on this matter soon thanks. Miked1992 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)MIked1992Miked1992 (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miked1992 (talk • contribs)

Neutrality (or lack thereof) of language
Re: the timeline entry for 9:14 am. I'm wondering why the description calls it "a holding room commandeered by the Secret Service" -- the word "commandeered" implies that they suddenly, in reaction to the attack, took over a room for this purpose. In fact it's standard operating procedure when the President of the United States travels that the Secret Service, about two weeks ahead of the trip, selects several rooms at every site for use as a holding room for the President, an office for the Secret Service, a communications room, etc. It would be more accurate, and less unnecessarily melodramatic, to say that the President returned to the holding room pre-arranged by the Secret Service, or just returned to his holding room. It's hardly important that it was the Secret Service that selected the room. 75.134.30.74 (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WTC 2 Crash Time

 * The times reflect longstanding consensus, developed principally at the main article talkpage years ago. Please establish consensus that the pre-existing agreed time format should be reconsidered before you change the article.  Acroterion   (talk)   15:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Everyone, I was just posting this because I personally feel that the general consensus of the WTC2 Crash time is and should be 9:03 A.M. in comparison to 9:02 A.M. Even though the "Collapse of the World Trade Center" and "Timeline for the September 11 Attacks have it currently at 9:02 A.M. The reason for this consensus change, is because I personally believe that we should go by the consensus of authoritative websites from the current decade, such as the 9/11 Memorial Official timeline, the United Flight 93 Memorial Official Timeline, and History. com as well as past sources such as the FEMA Report, the 9/11 Commission Report, and most other timelines from the 2000s and 2010s state the crash time at 9:03 A.M. By Comparison only the NIST Report and the National Transportation Safety Beuaru show the crash time at 9:02 A.M. I personally believe that using the most authoritative source which in this case if the National 9/11 memorial and Museum page for the true timeMiked1992 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Miked1992--Miked1992 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No The above entry appears to be a sock of someone who has previously tried to change timings. For more information please see Talk:Collapse of the World Trade Center. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to the NIST video database, it's 100% possible to establish an exact timeline if a baseline is set at the moment the first plane hits, because there is a continuous stream of amateur footage that overlaps with other videos. The NIST used various things such as smoke patterns, jumpers, fire patterns, impacts, debris, fireballs, and sound to synchronise each video to a very accurate degree. A user known as MrKoenig1985 uploaded many of these timed videos. The first video, the famous Naudet video, captures everything from 8:46:08am to 8:46:53am, with the baseline time of impact set at 8:46:30am. The next video, by Jim Huibregtse, begins at 8:46:49am and is continuous to 8:47:54am, providing four seconds of possible overlap. Syncing up the fire and smoke patterns at 8:46:51:02 and the white wisps at 8:46:51:23 in both videos indicates that the synchronicity is extremely accurate (uncertainty, I'd say, about five frames). Finally, the Keith Behrle video runs from 8:47:12am to 9:03:57am, overlapping the Huibregtse video for 42 seconds, and capturing the second impact which can easily be synced to continuous raw feeds such as those provided by CNN cameras (also available on the channel), which capture both collapses. The NIST used this information to determine both impacts and collapses down to the exact second, assuming 8:46:30am is the initial impact time (See Table 6-1, page 82). For accuracy's sake, using the T+x format: T+0 (8:46:30am) - North Tower strike, T+989 (9:02:59am) - South Tower strike, T+4349 (9:58:59am) - South Tower collapse, and T+6112 (10:28:22am) - North Tower collapse. The current timeline lists 8:46:40am (+10s) and 9:02:57am (-2s) respectively for the strikes, a 12 second discrepancy, 9:59:00am (+1s) for the South Tower collapse, and 10:28:22am (+/-0s) for the North Tower collapse. I understand that you have discussed these times in the past and set these previous times, however, I hope that you consider this research, which I believe provides the most accurate possible timings and is based on extensive and publicly available video evidence. 911Timeliner (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If the above is based on your personal analysis of the material, it's original research and not admissible. Are there reliable published reports to support your timeline?  Acroterion   (talk)   12:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * NIST NCSTAR 1-5A: Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates, and Timeline Analysis collected fourteen thousand videos and photographs of the burning buildings for visual analysis, such as progressive damage, timeline creation, and video timing. Just under 40% of all videos and photographs were timed to an uncertainty of three seconds, with a final uncertainty of one second for both impacts and collapses. The authors then uploaded a short journal article detailing their efforts. The times provided in both the report and the journal article (Table E-1, Adjusted Time from Television Broadcasts, which is five seconds ahead of the Relative Time for Visual Analysis) are consistent with my timeline. Additionally, the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 building is timed at 5:20:52pm. 911Timeliner (talk) 17:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Time discrepancy with the Air Traffic Control tapes?
Out of curiosity, I listened to the Boston Sector 46 (Boston ARTCC) ATC tape which recorded all conversations between 8:04am and 8:40am, and compared it to the timed transcript made by Karen L. Goff.

At 1:42 on the tape and 8:04:51am on the transcript, Athens Sector 38 says "Yes", and at 31:26 on the tape and 8:33:59am on the transcript, Mohammed Atta transmits the "Nobody move, please." to the ATC. The problem here is that the timing on the tape and the timing on the transcript don't properly add up. The tape separates these two conversations by 29:44, but the transcript only separates in by 29:08, a 36 second discrepancy. If the tape is to be believed, the transcript should instead time Atta's transmission at 8:33:23am.

I decided to listen to a few other key transmissions to see if the error is consistent.

From these, it shows that it's likely the available tape may have been slowed down or sped up very slightly, or done so accidentally during the transcription. Plotting the elapsed time and the discrepancy in Excel created a trendline with a slope of 0.01926x.

Using this slop, we can estimate that the tape, while being transcribed, was either playing back at 98.11% or 101.93% its actual speed.

I decided to look at another available ATC tape: Kingston Sector 20 (Boston ARTCC), and its accompanying transcript, this time prepared by Lucius V. Free, to see if there is any consistency. The first transmission, made by N876G, occurs at 0:54 on the tape and 8:31:02am on the transcript, and the final transmission, made by Air Canada 307, occurs at 13:50 on the tape and 8:43:55am on the transcript. In this case, however, while 12:56 passed on the tape, 12:53 passed in real time, meaning there is only a discrepancy of three seconds across thirteen minutes of tape (and about seven seconds if extrapolated to the 31:26 Boston Sector 46 tape).

This brings into question the accuracy of the times of certain transmissions made on the Boston Sector 46 frequency.

Again, this is my own research, and I know "personal research" doesn't change actual consensus. I just have nowhere else to put it where it would get some attention. 911Timeliner (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm posting again to say that, after further research, some tapes are playing at different speeds. To find this out, I downloaded the Boston 46R and 22R Sector ATC tapes from the archives.gov website. At 8:29am, Sector 22R contacted Sector 46R to issue a "point-out" for Continental Express Flight 4042. This call was initiated at 8:29:33am on the 46R transcript, but at 8:29:09am on the 22R transcript. I imported both tapes into audacity, set both tracks to spectrograms, then aligned both tapes to this point-out conversation. They aligned extremely well. However, I then imported Sector 39RA's tape, because at 08:27:37am, Sector 39A talks to Sector 22 about the primary target American 11. When I aligned these two tapes on the start of this conversation, it fell out of sync quickly. On the Sector 39RA tape, the conversation lasted 27.294 seconds, but on the Sector 22R tape, it lasted 26.486 seconds, meaning that the Sector 22R tape was three percent faster. It may seem little, but if the Sector 22R tape lasted exactly one hour, the corresponding Sector 39RA tape would last only 58 minutes and 13 seconds. 911Timeliner (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Editing a reflist
Does anyone know how to edit a reflist Ztaylor9 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The reflist is derived from "ref" statements in the body of the article.
 * Edit the original ref, and it will be reflected in the reflist. RJ4 (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Photo at 6:00 p.m. is not Marine One departing Andrews.
The photo at 6:00 p.m. captioned as "Airmen watch Marine One depart" is not a photo of Marine One. Bush flew in the VH-3D Sea King, which does not look like the aircraft pictured. First of all, the VH-3D Bush took from Andrews to the White House has a white top. In addition, its profile is not at all like the aircraft pictured. Moreover, the reference cited as evidence for the photo is a dead link. Finally, one needs merely to compare the many published photos and videos of Bush's arrival at the White House on 9/11 to see that he did not travel in the aircraft pictured in this article. 114.25.48.60 (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy youtube channels as sources
This link

https://www.youtube.com/watch/zxi2flUfRP8

is source 55. The channel '911InvestigationVids' is intended to spread conspiracies of the rather crazy type (like there were no planes hitting the WTC). I think Wikipedia shouldn't link to channels like that on principle.

Has this been discussed before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fumanschu (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

To add on that, the above video is titled '9/11 South Tower Demolition - Street Level From The South (NY1 958am)', with emphasis on 'demolition', not collapse. Fumanschu (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

"Forced to commit suicide"
I object to this edit; my reversion has already been undone so let's discuss.

The source used for this does not say that those that jumped were "forced to commit suicide". What it does say is that "The New York medical examiner's office says it does not classify the people who fell to their deaths on Sept. 11 as "jumpers'" and "The manner of death for all those who died was listed as homicide on death certificates." It goes on to say "Ultimately, they were choosing not whether to die but how to die." None of this meshes with Wikipedia describing those deaths as suicide, and it is insensitive to do so without reliable sources describing those deaths as suicide. The source we've used goes to a great deal of effort not to.

In defending the edit, refers to our article suicide by jumping from height. The article describes the term 'jumper' as "a term used ... for a person who plans to fall or jump (or already has fallen or jumped) from a potentially deadly height, sometimes with the intention to die by suicide, at other times to escape conditions inside (e.g. a burning building)." In other words the article distinguishes jumpers intending to commit suicide from jumpers escaping conditions inside: they are not the same, and someone who jumps is not automatically committing suicide. In addition to that, see the note quoted above from the medical examiner's office that those that jumped from the WTC were not classified as jumpers anyway, they were victims of the terrorist attack.

To put it plainly: Wikipedia stating that those in the upper floors of the north tower were "forced to commit suicide" is a novel conclusion not stated by the source, in fact it's directly opposite to what the source does say. As such the phrasing should be removed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The definition of suicide is "the act of intentionally causing one's own death." Most sources use evasive language such as "[they made] a conscious choice to die by falling", but how is that anything but a roundabout way of saying they did in fact take their own lives?


 * Clearly, their reason for jumping was to escape a horrible death by fire and smoke inhalation. Still doesn't make it any less of a suicide. Every suicide that has ever happened resulted from something. The terms 'homicide' and 'suicide' can coexist; being a victim of violence is a real risk factor for suicide, and it's not victim-blaming to say the jumpers were suicide victims, because by every definition except socially and legally, they were.


 * What happened to the jumpers was actually not unprecedented; the atrocious conditions faced in Nazi concentration camps as well as Soviet gulags and special camps drove countless people to suicide. One source reports that the risk of it happening under Nazi control could have been up to 30 times greater than that of the general populations. How many people would ever even try to dispute that the detainees who took their own lives were victims of mass murder?


 * Victims imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps were just ordinary people who were persecuted and murdered based on ethnicity, religion, race, disabilities, political views, and/or sexual orientation. Those imprisoned by the Soviets were more often than not also just regular people who were suspected of having anti-communist views, thrown in there on trumped-up charges. The people who jumped from the World Trade Center were likewise forced to do so on account of simply being either American or living there; Osama bin Laden's fatawā calls for the indiscriminate killing of Americans and their allies. None of these people wanted to die, but under the most horrendous circumstances, they reasonably took the quickest and least painful way out there was.


 * Nobody's giving bin Laden and his associates a free pass by admitting that their sadistic plan to torture and kill as many Americans as possible enforced what Esquire describes as the "mass suicide" of countless innocents. What should be called into question is why this whole stigma toward people who take their own lives even exists in the first place. There is a fear that describing the jumpers as suicide victims is to pin the blame on them and associate them with a word considered by the Catholic Church to be a grave offense in violation of the fifth commandment, but all that being selective with the socially acceptable definition of suicide instead of addressing the issue head-on does is perpetuate an awful stigma that has existed for a millennia. Hmm1994 (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)