Talk:Hijackers in the September 11 attacks/Archive 1

Previous discussions without headers

It is not known who organized the attacks. What is know is the version presented by the U.S. government. Due to this, I chaned a bit the introduction

hello i think it is awful what happened september 11. evn though it has been almost 4 weeks it still really bothers me.i feel that the us could have done more to prevent this from happening.y didnt they do this?how did the hijackers get through at the airport?how do we know this might not happen again? this are questions that i often ask myself. i feel sry for all the kids who lost parents who while watching the tv that day at school knowing that their parent(s) worked there.how hard it must have been that night not knowing if ur loved one was ok or not.the only thing to do was wait to see if they come home or not. what were the pplz thinkin when they did this?y would they take there their life not to mention thousands of others.i dont know how everyone else feels about this but it bothers me that there was ppl still in there a live after a few days but they made no effort to get them out maybe they tried i dont know but th

I have heard reports that one of the hijackers was 41 and left a family with children behind. I can't locate those reports anywhere on the web, and I don't know the guy's name. Does anybody have details? --AxelBoldt

I recommend checking New York Times stories; it's probably somewhere in there. --TheCunctator

All of the following text removed since it isn't really about the perpetrators. Assuming that it isn't already there, it should be merged intto tone of the other articles.

American Airlines flight 11 is crashed into the north side of the northern tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 AM EDT (Accounts of the attack have given times that range from 8:45 to 8:48 AM EDT). A member of the flight crew pressed a switch that permitted air traffic controllers to overhear at 8:28 AM EDT: "Don't do anything foolish. You are not going to get hurt. We have more planes. We have other planes."

A passenger on United Airlines flight 175, Peter Hanson, called his father from the plane reporting that hijackers were stabbing flight attendants in order to force the crew to open the cockpit doors. At 9:03 AM EDT, the plane is crashed into the south side of the southern tower of the World Trade Center.

On American Airlines flight 77, Barbara K. Olson called her husband, United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson at the Justice Department at 9:25 from the plane to tell him about the hijacking and to report that the passengers and pilots were held in the back of the plane. It is crashed into the western side of The Pentagon at 9:37 AM EDT, starting a violent fire.

On United Airlines flight 93, a passenger reached officials on his cell phone from the plane's rest room, repeatedly saying that the plane was hijacked and that the call was not a hoax. Passengers speaking on cell phones had learned about the World Trade Center crashes and were planning on resisting the hijackers. One passenger told his wife that one person had already been stabbed to death by the hijackers. There is speculation that the passengers' resistance led to the plane crashing before it reached its intended target. At 10:10 AM EDT (other accounts say 10:03 AM EDT and 10:06 AM EDT), the plane crashed southeast of Pittsburgh , near Shanksville in Somerset county, Pennsylvania.

helpful news item

It looks like this news item [1] would be useful to the people working on this article. Kingturtle 04:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Protagonists"

Why is this called "Protagonists" when that either means the lead character in a story or the champion of a cause. It is not POV to show the attackers as "champions". - Texture 20:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I moved the page to "Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks" because of this. —Mulad 06:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"Terrorists"

Is there an objective criteria as to who is called terrorist and who isn't? I definitely agree that the 9/11 Hijackers were terrorists, but suicide bmbers in Israel are also terrorists, and aren't called that way In Wikipedia.

One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter; yet this article states:

'...resulting in the arrest of one terrorist...'

Predictably, Wikiperial refers to terrorists in Syria as 'rebels'.Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

Misidentification of hijackers.

rmhermen,

Once again, you done some great work and added fascinating info I hadn't known. But once again, I disagree with a statement you made. You can probably guess what it is. :)

Despite persistent rumours there is no evidence of travel under false passports or misidentification of hijackers. The fact that some people with the same names as some of the hijackers merely shows the coincidence of a small number of names used by a very large population.

I'm not comfortable with that being stated as a fact. For details, see Talk:Abdulaziz al-Omari and Talk:Waleed al-Shehri. And possibly others as well. Quadell (talk) 23:07, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Please add this to common myths regarding hijackers

Many conspiracy sites claim that some hijackers are still alive. Please note these articles

This has been refuted by many sources. For example the ABC story states that there is another Ahmed Alnami who is ten years younger, and appears to be dead, according to his father. [ABC News, 3/15/02] There is a second pair of Saudi brothers named Wail and Waleed M. Their father says they've been missing since December 2000. [ABC News, 3/15/02, Arab News, 9/17/01]

During the Dateline NBC Aug 25 article: They had an exclusive interview with brother of two hijackers Wail al Shahiri, and Waleed al Shahiri. NBC went to Saudi Arabia.

Also see this article regarding the BBC's incorrect information http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html

The BBC (amd other reports) were based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper. Managing Editor John Bradley stated that the "reporters did not speak directly with the "survivors," and that the photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. Another reporter where these stories originated (Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reporter named Mohammed Samman), confirms this.

An please add the fact also, that there is not a single piece of physical evidence to link any of these 19 induviduals to the attacks.--El magnifico 23:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El magnifico, not a single piece eh?--Beguiled 13:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

I found this list [2], claiming no hijackers in it. What is the proof for any hijacker being in the planes? --Striver 00:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing a geocities page and asking us to disprove it? Come on, I can understand that you're not American but as a programmer you have to know what geocities is. They were on the manifests. We just tend not to memorialize them. We memorialize the victims. Atta and co. are not victims. --Mmx1 00:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, the names of the supposed hijackers have never appeared on passenger manifests. Did the FBI just assume all the people with Arabic sounding names were the hijackers?

This page on FBI.gov [3] says "Within a matter of days, the FBI identified the 19 hijackers using flight, credit card, banking, and other records."

I still don't see how flight records, credit card records, banking records, or "other records" could shed any light on who exactly hijacked the planes once the planes were in the air. Perhaps that information is "classified" but maybe that is why they are still referred to as "suspects." --Pixelface 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geocities? My god, how are we suppose to work with someone who won't even use reliable sources and uses geocities sources to push his 9/11 truth POV?--Jersey Devil 09:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soon you will find out that not a single one of these 19 had anything to do with 11/09/2001, just like Oswald had nothing to do with 22/11/1963 (apart from helping the actual shooter to pick up his cartridges during target practice;) --El magnifico 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative views

Why is there no mention of the view of government involvement here? Mastaku 07:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because this great site is infested by jewish/american propaganda that Joseph Goebels himself would be very proud of ! --El magnifico 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-American propaganda? Get a load of this guy!--Beguiled 14:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beguiled? Get a load of this guy!

Beguiled does have a bit of a point. What you said does not answer Mastaku's question and the statement you made is pretty close-minded and convoluted.Singystar 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that 9/11 conspiracy theories covers speculated government involvement. Though it probably would be wise to put a link to that part of the article considering that many people do consider the government one of the organizers.Singystar 06:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Five guys per flight . . . "Hey, were the Hell is the last guy?"

If the first three had five men, why does the last one only have four. Is it ture that the last guy missed the last flight, and later got arrested for being suspected as part of the terrorist group?

conspiracy theories

Is there any evidence or proper sources to backup this "conspiracy theory".

"The September 11, 2001 attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers, with planning and organization of the attacks involving numerous additional members of al-Qaeda." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.162.102 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.117.244 (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hawkofpandora a 9/11 inside story by Hellstrom explains that chechens were the first group of hijackers and he has the proof and it explains the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.90.0 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Author Thomas Hawk Hellstrom describes in his book a true story of real events about a report/memo delivered to the FBI Dec. 30, 2000, regarding a cell of seven Chechen terrorists wanted by Interpol that were discovered and identified by the author, several colleagues and nightclub staff and its security personnel between October and December 2000 which was 11 to 9 months prior to September 11, 2001. Hellstrom does not say in any way that these Chechens were the first Hijackers in any description in his book but were a missing element of 9-11. Hellstrom describes that these Chechen interpol suspects based on indicted 9-11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui's defense records ^{[Find Law 1]} and many other documented sources that these Chechen suspects were however tied to Zacarias Moussauoi, Mohammed Atta and many of the other hijackers connected through Al Qaida's high ranking member, considered to be one of Osama bin Laden's Lieutenants, Chechen Mujahideen leader Ibn al Khattab. Many neoconservative members of the U.S government (both Democrat and Republican) and corporate elite supported the Chechen mujahideen through American Committee for Peace in Chechnya(ACPC) prior to thier presence in the U.S.[reply]

Author does have authentic fax receipt to FBI and written testimony by colleague regarding 30 minute conversation with the main suspect revealing main suspects statements which collaborates with main suspects interview with Chechen underground internet site Qoqaz.net. Hawk of Pandora; A 9/11 Missing Link is in fact a well documented and resourcefull book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.190.157 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Causality

This account is in dispute as bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for the September 11th attacks ^[1].

I removed this line because 1) it doesn't fit with the Wiki POV (*who* disputes the account?), and 2) it is confusing causality with correlation. It assumes that bin Laden would've been involved if the FBI brought charges. One does not follow from the other. All you can say is that the FBI chose not to charge bin Laden. He may or may not have been involved. Safety Cap (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of WikiBiography

This article, while interesting and very much an issue that should be kept is not within the scope of the WikiProject: Biography WP:BIO. Removed tag accordingly. C. Williams (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"bin laden" is not a surname:

Strictly speaking, Arabic linguistic conventions dictate that he be referred to as "Osama" or "Osama bin Laden", not "bin Laden," as "Bin Laden" is not used as a surname in the Western manner, but simply as part of his name, which in its entirety means "Osama, son of Mohammed, son of 'Awad, son of Laden". However, the bin Laden family (or "Binladin", as they prefer to be known) do generally use the name as a surname in the Western style. Consequently "bin Laden" has become nearly universal in Western references to him, Arabic convention notwithstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stpuidhead (talk • contribs) 03:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think American contributors are much interested in linguistic conventions outside the USA. Which is why there is a best selling book called "The Da Vinci Code" that shows similar ignorance of the use of surnames in other cultures. It would be no surprise if an American author were to write a biography of Christ one of these days and call it "The Of Nazareth" story. [John Henry, 7 Dec 2009] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.62.33.9 (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for that matter, "Christ" isn't a name either, but a title. Wschart (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

86.152.73.237, stop vandalizing this article.Putting random names in place of the hijackers is unconstructive.

Rape Aboard AA 77?

under american airlines flight 77, it says "She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane and raped each girl." there is no source for this and i've never heard it before. why is it there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.142.53 (talk) 01:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First line clarified (identifying the proponents of this theory is relevant)

I didn't have enough room in the edit summary to explain fully, which is why I'm writing here. Wikipedia should not be representing, as undoubted fact, things which are asserted without evidence, or with only evidence which is under dispute. The official conspiracy theory of the 19 Saudi/Arab hijackers should certainly be documented, but omitting important information such as a mention of the source seems to go against WP:NPOV.

I would refer the person who deleted my last edit to item 7 of WP:Staying_cool_when_the_editing_gets_hot:

Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, bear in mind that others may find something useful in what you remove. Almost everyone – including you – has something useful to say. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time; at the very least leave some indication of your rationale in an edit summary, if not in an entry on a Talk page or in a message to a user or users you think might be perturbed by your action.

I trust that if anyone has an objection to the clarification in the article's first line that they will be courteus enough as to provide their reasoning here, before any more deletions. Thanks. :) • Gliktch • ^(Talk) 03:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to remove your edit. Your addition does not fix a POV issue, it creates one. No significant sources identify this account as the "official conspiracy theory." We do not have on the page for the John F. Kennedy assassination that the "official conspiracy theory was that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald." This is presented as widely accepted fact, while the true conspiracy theories are treated as what they are, conspiracy theories. JEN9841 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jen, one man does not a conspiracy make. A theory involving more than 19 protagonists *conspiring* is a conspiracy theory. Since many people seem unwilling to use terminology which, while accurate, carries a lot of baggage - due, I would point out, to its deliberate ridiculing by proponents of the official theory in an attempt to marginalise skeptics - I yield to your subsequent edit. • Gliktch • ^(Talk) 23:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing real conspiracies (such as the Watergate cover up) with conspiracy theories which are imagined and don't exist in reality (such as the Jews, Illuminati, alien reptilian shape-shifters, etc. are out to rule the world). These are two different things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK, please do not presume to know what I think. If you wish to take something as fact just because it is claimed by someone in power, especially when said power rides on the public's acceptance of those claims, that's your prerogative, but I would rather let the facts stand on their own merit rather than relying on appeals to authority. Do you honestly think that the government-appointed 9/11 Commission was thorough and unbiased? Though I do concede that at least *some* people in the commission had the conscience to suggest criminal charges be brought against officials for their incompetence, so perhaps I shouldn't be so hard on them there... At best, 9/11 was enabled to succeed as it did by gross ineptitude within US intelligence and government, at worst it was the result of deliberate malice by the same. While personally I gravitate towards the former, I have yet to see anything that eliminates the possibility of the latter. I think you'll agree that a rational skeptic should apply his skepticism not only to those theories which oppose his held view, but also (or perhaps, especially) to those which support it. • Gliktch • ^(Talk) 04:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what I personally believe. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are based on the premise that article content should reflect what reliable sources say about a topic. By "reliable sources", it means peer-reviewed academic journals and mainstream media (with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking). Few (if any) reliable sources use the terminology you added. JEN9841 is correct. Your changes didn't solve a WP:NPOV issue; it created one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Training

RE: The hijackers were organized into four teams, each led by a pilot-trained hijacker[citation needed] Where were they trained to fly Boeing 737 planes? Airplanes are not like bicycles; even experienced pilots need training to fly a different type of airplane!94.195.120.161 (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and the other individual hijackers for details on flight training. The training was on a variety of planes, and they took over planes that were already in the air, which simplified things. Acroterion (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ziad Jarrah's Messages

I challenge any intellectually honest reader with good hearing to peruse these audio recordings without prejudice and tell us if they concur with this bogus transcription:

Ladies and gentlemen. This is the captain. Please sit down. Keep remaining sitting(sic). We have a bomb on board. So sit. [...]

Uh, this is the captain. Would like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb on board and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands met. Please remain quiet.[20]

Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Hijackers in the September 11 attacks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hijackers in 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:

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) 09:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Background section removed

This article is about the hijackers in the September 11 attacks. It had included a "background" section that was about another plot. The section did not show any connection between that plot and the 9/11 hijackers. I deleted the section from the article and am including it here for the record:

==Background==

The 2001 attacks were preceded by the less well known Bojinka plot which was planned in the Philippines by Ramzi Yousef (of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Its objective was to blow up twelve airliners^[2] and their approximately 4,000 passengers as they flew from Asia to the United States. The plan included crashing a plane into the CIA headquarters, lending credence to the theory that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed evolved this plot into the September 11 attacks.^[3] The plot was disrupted in January 1995 after a chemical fire drew the Filipino police and investigation authorities' attention, resulting in the arrest of one terrorist and seizure of a laptop containing the plans. One person was killed in the course of the plot — a Japanese passenger seated near a nitroglycerin bomb on Philippine Airlines Flight 434.^[4] The money handed down to the plotters originated from Al-Qaeda, the international Islamic jihadi organization then based in Sudan.^{[citation needed]}

The last sentence, about the money, confused me. I don't know if it was about the Bojinka plot or 9/11. It seems to have nothing to do with the 9/11 hijackers unless someone wants to expand that sentence into a section on how the 9/11 hijackers were financed. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore The information is relevant to the background to the 9/11 attacks, as it refers to those organisers behind the plots(s). Regarding "the money" there is already a citation notice asking for more information. David J Johnson (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wanted in connection with 9/11 attacks, FBI website as of September 11, 2007
^ Mazzetti, Mark (November 14, 2009). "Portrait of 9/11 'Jackal' Emerges as He Awaits Trial". New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2009.
^ John J. Lumpkin. "Global Security". Global Security. Retrieved 2011-09-11.
^ Kushner, Harvey W. (2003). Encyclopedia of Terrorism. SAGE Publications. p. 238. ISBN 978-0-7619-2408-1.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hijackers in 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/20131012081946/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a937glick to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a937glick

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) 21:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=Find Law> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Find Law}} template (see the help page).

[fbiwanted-2] Wanted in connection with 9/11 attacks, FBI website as of September 11, 2007

[3] Mazzetti, Mark (November 14, 2009). "Portrait of 9/11 'Jackal' Emerges as He Awaits Trial". New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2009.

[4] John J. Lumpkin. "Global Security". Global Security. Retrieved 2011-09-11.

[5] Kushner, Harvey W. (2003). Encyclopedia of Terrorism. SAGE Publications. p. 238. ISBN 978-0-7619-2408-1.

[Find Law 1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]