Talk:September 11 attacks

Fifth Plane?

Has there been discussion of whether we should write about the possibility of a fifth plane, United flight 23, being involved in the attack? It seems that a mention would be appropriate here, along with an article about the incident and subsequent investigations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-26517-92 (talk)

I agree, there should be a discussion and possibly an article. There has bean mention of a possible fifth plane, which never got in the air, in books and a TV program. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to initiate a new entry. David J Johnson (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

The FBI report, which got consumed into the 9/11 Commission Report, does not mention anything about a fifth plane. Where are your sources? Butterscotch5 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Butterscotch5, thanks for the comment. Apologies for a very quick reply, but I seem ultra - busy at the moment. Anyway, I accessed info regarding the possibility of a potential hijack of United 23 from "The Eleventh Day" by Anthony Summers & Robin Swan. I have usually found the authors to be a reliable source previously. Additionally, I came accross a report, mentioning FBI interest in this potential case in a publication called floridabulldog.org, This report was fairly recent and I have no idea how reliable this might be. There was also a TV program on UK television, in the last couple of years; although I believe it was orginally, a US production, which interviewed the Captain and crew members of United 23. They seemed convinced that had the flight not been recalled to the gate, they too would be hijacked. I regret I cannot rememeber the TV station, or the program name. In haste and best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Didn't Summers also write a book about JFK? I forget the name, some conspiracy tosh. The name is familiar - maybe more famous for something else, IDK. Tweet7 (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

I thought I'd propose a change here.

In the Effects in Afghanistan section, there is a sentence that doesn't make any sense (emphasis mine):

In the aftermath of the attacks, tens of thousands of people attempted to flee Afghanistan due to the possibility of military retaliation by the U.S. Pakistan, already home to many Afghan refugees from previous conflicts, closed its border with Afghanistan on September 17, 2001.

Does it mean U.S. and Pakistan? Because, while I may not be that knowledgeable in South Asian history, I don't believe the U.S. ever controlled Pakistan, as the sentence implies. TheAuroraBorealis (u/t/c) 01:59, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Makes sense to me. Unless the change has been made and reverted before, be bold. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@UmbyUmbreon: interesting. I remember reading about a restriction on another user's talk page about some restriction limiting post-1992 US politics to extended confirmed users. This is why I made this request. TheAuroraBorealis (u/t/c) 02:31, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@TheAuroraBorealis I'm not sure if it was the case before, but there is no current ECR restriction on post-1992 US politics. You can check the list of current ECRs at WP:ECRLIST. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

@UmbyUmbreon: thank you! TheAuroraBorealis (u/t/c) 02:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

If you spell out United States, it becomes apparent that a period after United States will solve the confusion. ~2026-45064-50 (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

FEMA image showing explosion damage wrong?

I understand it came from the FEMA report but the graphic seems to be wrong. The explosion erupting from the North Tower's southern facade is depicted as coming out closer to the South Tower, but in images like this, one can clearly see that that side of the southern facade is not obscured by smoke nor damaged like the other half is, implying that the explosion shot out of that side instead. Do we have a better image to show here? And a reliable source to go with it? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't quite know what you're asking. I'll answer in a couple of different ways. If you're asking rhetorically, then I would say that if I had a better source myself I'd have brought it up. I was asking if anyone else did.

On the other hand perhaps you're asking literally what sources actually describe, and to that I can only point to the image that's on the article that I feel is wrong even though it comes from an official source. I don't know that another source has literally described what the image shows in a way that's more compatible with reality. It just contradicts photographic evidence from what I've seen, so if something else has emerged that has superseded it we should use it. (I'm doubtful, I lurk in that Subreddit all the time and haven't seen anything so far. But maybe someone else has, thus I asked here.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:00, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

RS = reliable sources --ABx11 (she/they) 17:53, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Trimming Background Section

Hi! I was working on this article quite a bit before my summer gap in activity, and I noticed that the article (in particular the background section), could be shorter and summarized. Almost all of the sections within this section have their own article, and the extensive detail and amount of quotes might be unnecessary. This article is going to be long regardless given its continuing impact, but I'd like to do some adjusting so it can be a balance of both informative and summarized. I'm going to go forward with some trimming for now, but I'm leaving this here if there's anything you think I should keep/add back later. Cheers, much love, rock on!

⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism" in attack type (infobox)

Is this appropriate? The phrase "Islamic terrorism" in itself does not indicate anything about the type of attack. If anything, 9/11, with its scale and methods used, is uncharacteristic of a typical Islamic extremist terrorist attack. Islamic terrorism is more like a motive than the attack type, though I am not suggesting it be moved there as the motives section of the infobox is fine. Macxcxz (talk) 01:23, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a subsection of terrorism named Islamic terrorism because it is defined as a terrorist attack carried out by an Islamic terrorist cell. Al Qaeda translates roughly to "The Foundation" or "The Base" and was created in the late 80s by Osama Bin Laden and other leaders as a way to support Muslim fighters against Afghanistan.

Once they took responsibility for the terrorist attack and we came to understand their motivation, it was defined as specifically terrorism by an Islamic Terrorist Cell Glitc5 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding the phrase “Islamic terrorist organization”

I believe the phrase “Islamic terrorist organization” could be made more precise. Rather than directly characterizing the organization as “Islamic,” I suggest wording such as “a terrorist organization claiming to follow an Islamic ideology.” This makes clear that the organization identifies itself with an Islamic ideological framework without implying that it represents Islam as a religion or that its actions are inherently endorsed by Islam. This distinction is particularly important because Wikipedia's wording is subsequently reproduced by other platforms, potentially without the surrounding context. Haseebsaad (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Not what the sources describe them as, also see WP:CLAIM. — Czello ^(music) 12:10, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

We go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2026

Please change the start time in the infobox from approximately 8:13 a.m. to approximately 8:14 a.m. The 9/11 Commission Report states that American Airlines Flight 11's communications and flight profile were normal until just before 8:14 a.m., when the aircraft made its last routine communication with air traffic control. Sixteen seconds later, a further ATC instruction received no response. The Commission therefore concluded that "the hijacking began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter."

As the infobox appears to use the beginning of the first hijacking as the starting point of the attacks, approximately 8:14 a.m. would more closely reflect the Commission's finding than 8:13 a.m.

Source: The 9/11 Commission Report, Chapter 1, "The Hijacking of American 11." ~2026-47017-71 (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Approximately 8:13 is approximately 8:14. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:21, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Should we add a ECP to this?

Since tomorrow is the infamous 9/11 as a precaution we should put ECP. (.) 17:26, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

seeing that a page-move vandalism happened to this page, I agree. Soviet Pepega (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, after seeing the ability to move the page get ECP'd, I think they should extend it to editing. In case more vandalism happens. Soviet Pepega (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Being a high-traffic article this is, I think we should use PC-ECP (pending changes, auto accept for extended) instead so less hardcore users still get to participate. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:54, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Given what has just happened, I disagree. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

This page is ECP move restricted, and yet, every other few months a temp account manages to bypass it. Not sure how much this will change things, but go ahead. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 14:59, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Edit Request - Change how many years ago it was from 24 to 25

It was on September of 2001, now its 2026 so thats 25 years ago, not 24 ~2026-45163-94 (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

It was 24 years and 364 days ago. Tomorrow it will say 25 years. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

trump not attending ground zero

edit request and joe biden would now no longer be the only president to attend ground zero as trump would instead attend the pentagon as multiple news sources reports this Afonya64 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misreading what you're saying. There was never a case when Biden was the only president to attend ground zero. Both George W. Bush, and Obama did during their respective terms.

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

thats what this article says that biden was the only president. Afonya64 (talk) 06:14, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, let's regroup a little and look at the what it did say. This is the statement (the only reference I can find):

Smaller services are held in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, which are usually attended by the First Lady. In 2023, Joe Biden did not attend services in the affected areas, instead marking the day in Anchorage, Alaska, the only U.S. president to do so since the attacks.

Your original phrasing was this:

"joe biden would now no longer be the only president to attend ground zero"

I believe you meant

"joe biden would now no longer be the only president to NOT attend ground zero",

Yes?

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

yes, apologies as i did write that at a late time and was tired Afonya64 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

If it's no longer the case we should, remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

It's a compound error I think. I'm trying to ferret it out above. 𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I never got an answer from OP, so I dug a little into this (it's not my original statement nor any gripe, but it got me interested) and part of the problem seems to stem from the usage of "ground zero" meaning only the Towers. The Pentagon was also a target, and when a leader (Biden, Trump, whomever) chooses to forego the Twin Towers (ground zero) for the Pentagon, I can't quite see any "there" there. I'd be fine with a chart of who visited what and when, but for now, I don't really see a point in having the article call it out either way. Should be pulled unless someone else has a fresh perspective on what the sources say that I missed.

𝓦𝓲𝓴𝓲𝓹𝓮𝓭𝓲𝓪𝓘𝓼𝓝𝓸𝓽𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭-𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼𝓡𝓮𝓿𝓲𝓮𝔀𝓮𝓭𝓑𝔂𝓟𝓮𝓮𝓻𝓼𝓞𝓷𝓵𝔂 (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Time frame in infobox

Completely disagree with the removal of the time frame of the attacks from the infobox. What's the point in just having the date in the infobox when that's already in the title?

The time frame was removed unilaterally without any discussion. It's very important information that has been in the infobox for years, and it should be restored. ~2026-49160-74 (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

Any further input on this? I will note that several other infamous terrorist attacks also have the exact time they took place in the infobox below the date, such as the Oklahoma City bombing or the 7 July 2005 London bombings. We have a long standing precedent to note the timeframe, and it's just unusual not to include it on a page like this. This needed a discussion before being removed. ~2026-49240-08 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Remove photo discussion

Under Investigations > FBI, there is a photograph of Ziad Jarrah. I propose to remove the photo and replace it with the #2 (in my opinion) hijacker, Marwan al-Shehhi (spelling may be off). This article gives no clue why Ziad's photo is there. I could do this myself but believe that discussion is better than just removing a photo on this high profile Wikipedia article. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Support removal and add Marwan's photo. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• Can you include the pictures here (visible if PD, non-visible if copyrighted) so no one has to guess what you mean?

Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:26, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Support the removal of the Jarrah image but oppose the inclusion of Shehi as he is not mentioned in the prose. Instead the section should probably just feature Atta since he's the only hijacker mentioned by-name. Hsnkn (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2026

After the Mayor of NYC disclosed secret documents, you must amend the event on9/11 ~2026-49494-37 (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Meters (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I have tagged the relevant section. Szxq (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)