Talk:Ben Sliney

Fair use rationale for File:Ben Sliney in United 93.jpg

File:Ben Sliney in United 93.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 Wikipedia: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) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

copy-editing needed?

I noticed a sentence-fragment near the end of the paragraph about his actions on 09/11 (for which he is notable). But because it looks like it was copied and pasted from another source, I flagged it for cleanup instead of fixing it myself. (That way, I avoid derivative-work liability.) Thanks. 68.55.112.31 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

How did he come into the position?

Is it known how this guy got his position? I feel like this could become/is part of a conspiracy theory, it would be very helpful to include details of how he got that job coincidentally on 9/11. StainlessSteelScorpion (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

He was the assistant (next in command) to the NOM, and the NOM retired. That COULD be a conspiracy, but that would be one hell of a coincidence. Also, it would be kind of a "reverse" consipracy, since only a first-day maverick would likely make such a gutsy call that turned out to be the correct call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.11.205 (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

SCATANA

Since I just stumbled across this article about 10 minutes ago, I'm not going to edit the body of the article. However, the article mentions that SCATANA was involved. SCATANA was never implemented during 9/11. In fact, SCATANA has been largely an obsolete concept for many years. In the age of GPS and INS, SCATANA would likely have no effect on any kind of terrorist attack or invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.11.205 (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"...which the 9/11 Commission later denoted as an important and decisive moment in that morning's chaos."

What does that mean? Was the commission positive or negative regarding this decision? In what way was it decisive, what did it decide?

Source for spouse no longer mentions marriage

Archive from September 10, 2018 mentions marriage, but archive from when I looked on September 18, 2019 does not. Not sure when it was removed, or if it means a change in the relationship. I updated the source to point to a date that did contain the blurb about the marriage in my change, but I'm worried about it no longer being accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User135797531 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)