Jump to content

Talk:United Airlines Flight 175

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateUnited Airlines Flight 175 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleUnited Airlines Flight 175 has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 4, 2021Good article nomineeListed
April 18, 2023Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 11, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after being hijacked, United Airlines Flight 175 almost had two mid-air collisions with other aircraft before crashing into the South Tower of the World Trade Center (pictured)?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

200 or 300 feet near miss with Delta plane?

[edit]

As of now, in the near misses section, it says Flight 175 missed the Delta plane by 200 feet, however, other sources say 300 feet. And I have looked at the official radar screen data for Flight 175 and it clearly shows they passed by 300 feet. But different sources say 200 feet, and others say 300 feet, should we keep it at 200 feet or should we change it to 300 feet? Sources that are cited on that section say 200 and 300 feet. The person who should not be named (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is engine information "far too much detail"

[edit]

Since @David J Johnson reverted. I have a question.

EVERY SINGLE Aircraft accident, incident article on wikipedia contains information about aircraft engines, the year of manufacture and so on. On this particular incident, the aircraft engines played a major role in the crash as they were ejected out of the opposite ends of WTC 1 and WTC 2 as debris and landed on the streets below and people took photos of them, and that is how particular aircraft partly was identified and the debris that belonged to them.

How exactly Aircraft engine information is not relevant ("far too much detail") to an article about AIRCRAFT INCIDENT?

It seems there an organized effort by @David J Johnson to get rid of important and relevant information for some reason, which is concerning. This just undermines wikipedia as a platform for getting crucial and important information. And you are just helping conspiracy theories to thrive, because there are tons of people and growing in numbers who actually believe planes didn't crash in WTC and never seen the engines because this information is withhold (for some reason). When it comes to such incidents, every detail matters and engines are integral part to aircraft operation.

So, why @David J Johnson even removed photos of engine wreckage? Maybe maps must be removed too because average person can't read a map anymore in 2024 and that is also "far too much detail" for the average mind who needs to be fed dumbed down information only? YitzhakNat (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at American Airlines Flight 11. This is an article about a hijacked airplane, not an event having anything to do with the airplane itself. And please don't personalize your complaint in that manner. Acroterion (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

[edit]

Garnet Bailey was not just a hockey scout, he was also a Stanley Cup champion. I feel that his line should read "Among the other passengers were hockey scout and Stanley Cup champion Garnet "Ace" Bailey" 2601:8C1:8200:BFA0:DD3:DF00:AB33:854D (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: What his full name was or which awards he won is not particularly relevant here. --TheImaCow (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did Flight 175 fly over Pennsylvania?

[edit]

I have noticed in images that Flight 175 crossed over New Jersey but not Pennsylvania (see images below) Is it conformed that Flight 175 flew over Pennsylvania?. If not then maybe we should change the flight path that is shown on the article?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flight_paths_of_hijacked_planes-September_11_attacks.jpg https://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight175route.jpg

https://cdn2.picryl.com/photo/2001/12/31/911-fema-flight-path-graphic-a14ffc-640.png

https://64.media.tumblr.com/f77d4992f7556caf4c2fa95b8acf44b1/0c89089b516cb0d6-89/s1280x1920/e54f15a5124b6621864ca399c092231b0316bd0d.jpg

https://cdn.britannica.com/q:60/50/70150-050-F587E822/routes-planes-terrorist-attacks-September-11-2001.jpg 173.61.89.189 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, UAL175 probably didn't fly over Pennsylvania. All the maps linked show that it didn't and the article doesn't either. In fact, the word "Pennsylvania" isn't in the article. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 21:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[1]: There is nothing to change in the flight map in the article. Can you clarify what you want to change? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are talking about the infobox image File:UA175_path.svg that comes from Sec 1, page 32 of the 911 commission report. [2] Both show the aircraft crossing into PA. I'm not sure why that is significant to the IP. Is there some issue with the 9/11 commission report? --Dual Freq (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I guess I need better glasses then. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]