Talk:TWA Flight 800/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Former introduction to 'alternate theories' that might be useful

Years back, I wrote an introduction to the 'alternate theories' section that has since disappeared but had, among other things, an NTSB quote with a reference, and a summary. Is it, or parts of it, worth putting into the article again?

The NTSB's conclusions about the cause of the TWA 800 disaster took four years and one month to be published. As of January 16, 1997 (the six month anniversary of the disaster), the NTSB's chairman, Jim Hall, was quoted, "All three theories - a bomb, a missile or mechanical failure - remain."[1] The FBI's earliest investigations and interviews, later used by the NTSB, were performed under the assumption of a missile attack, a fact noted in the NTSB's final report.

Speculation was fueled in part by early descriptions, visuals, and eyewitness accounts of this jet disaster, including a sudden explosion and trails of fire in the sky; particularly, trails of fire moving in an upward direction.

The two most prevalent specific theories around TWA 800 are that of a terrorist bomb on board, or a missile striking the plane (attributed to American armed forces by some and to terrorists by others). Those supporting these alternative explanations for the crash typically claim that the NTSB's explanation, above, was created as a cover-up; that the NTSB did not investigate sufficiently; or that the NTSB did not have all the evidence they should have to reach the correct conclusion.

Skybunny 15:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I put that back in at the start of the Alternative theories section as a sort of mini-lead (switched the order of two sentences). The summary of the final report is going to finish with "Conclusions", and therefore we need a way to restart the narrative; I think it works for that purpose quite nicely Lipsticked Pig 17:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wreckage recovery section

A quick and dirty version is up now; if someone can reformat the image gallery I put up there to so it looks better that would be great (maybe just have them seperate instead of together?) Lipsticked Pig 19:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article length problems

The NTSB analysis, even when greatly condensed, is going to be long. Maybe for now we can leave it like that, and once the article has some completeness to it, we can try to tighten it up, or move large sections to sub-pages. By far, this is probably THE worst accident report to try to "summarize" *sigh* Also, there are few graphics that we can use in the very technical analysis section, leaving it somewhat "boring". In the end I have alot of regrets trying to work on this, as it will be hard to make this both an accurate yet readable article. Suggestions are desperately wanted and needed. I'll try to at least finish a reasonable summary of the NTSB report, but then I realized what I really would like to work on is Iran Air Flight 655. I don't understand why TWA 800 gets so much attention as opposed to the Vincennes shootdown. In more need of alot of work too is the Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870 article. Lipsticked Pig 23:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I re-wrote the Lead, History of Flight, and Investigations sections. It was made a little shorter, both in content and space. The "Other" section in "Investigation" should just basically describe each of the NTSB investigative groups like "Sequencing" or "CVR", and say "this" group was reponsible for "that". There is just no way to go into more detail without this article being way too long.

Bnguyen, I left out the reference to the New York Guard and Gailliard. The NTSB listed over 17 groups involved in search and recovery; the New York Guard was like 7th on the list. The 14th NYG Group and Gailliard were not mentioned by name, and though I'm sure they did good work, I don't think they merit mention in this article compared to other agencies who had a more direct bearing on the investigation. Lipsticked Pig 10:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories section

I deleted the "summary" sub-section

"Witness detail..." doesn't add much to new content already in article
Stinger stockpiles quote is unreferenced
2 quotes about CNN conclusions that are unnecessary
somewhat POV statement about NTSB/FBI conflict

Started work on re-writing this section, starting with Pierre Salinger. For now I'm going somewhat chronologically, with what was reported in the press. Next I'll do James Sanders, then Ray Lahr. This is a good way (citing mass media reporting) to introduce alternative theories, yet stick with WP:RS. We just can't put Peter Lance's beliefs in the body of the article, they need to be put on the Peter Lance article page. He, alone, does not qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards.

If the Pierre Salinger section looks bad for alternative theories, Sanders are Lahr will certainly look better. I personally believe these two guys have the best intentions in their actions. And this can all be presented encyclopedically, and well. Lipsticked Pig 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Many of the critiques made here by "lipsticked pig" are simply opinion, and bad opinion at that. His application of dual standards to the editing process is quite apparent. For instance his statement: (referring to Peter Lance) "He, alone, does not qualify as a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards." is just as applicable to Sanders and Lahr, as it is Lance.

The issue I raise has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with Sanders, Lahr, or Lance. I could babble on about the assistance I have provided to Ray Lahr, or how it is patently obvious that James Sanders offers voluminous speculation as fact, but that would be doing what Mr. Pig has done. In essence, Lahr and Sanders have no special qualifiers (sans extensive legal battles relating to the case) anymore than Lance does. Their research and opinions are self generated, and thus all should be given equal footing. Author51 10:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The alternative theories section belongs solely on a separate Wiki page. Almost all of the assertions are unverifiable WP:V. Despite the request for facts and citations, none exist. Due to the length and extensive commentary on this section, it is clear that this article needs to be clearly defined as factual information about the flight, crash, vicitms and investigations - in short those elements which can be confirmed or at least agreed upon via consensus. Otherwise, this is simply speculation WP:OR. Jettparmer (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section that you wrote:

It is important to note that alternative theories are just that, alternative. In some cases, these theories have been investigated sufficiently to disprove them or that insufficient evidence exists to prove or disprove them (as in the case of the scavenge pump). The theories surrounding actions by individuals (missile attacks, bomb plantings and the like) fall squarely into the category of conspiracy theory. To date, despite independent efforts and the passage of time, no credible evidence has emerged to support any of the conspiracy versions of these alternate theories. — (added by User:Jettparmer)

Inside that section, your one reference was to another Wikipedia page, a type of reference that doesn't hold up here. Your reference needs to be to an outside, verifiable source. To put this section into the article, you will need to find a published expert saying something like this and cite him or her.

I also removed this sentence that you used to replace four paragraphs of alternate theories:

All alternative theories remain as unsupported speculation[.] — (added by User:Jettparmer)

I'm all for trimming back the presence of alternate theory detail here on this page. I believe it's sufficient to offer the reader a brief summary and show them the link to the main article on alt theories. The way you edited it, the summary part wasn't present. What's interesting here is how your replacement sentence is an unverifiable synthesis of your position, yet your edit summary uses WP:VERIFY as a reason to delete four paragraphs. Binksternet (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In other words, don't replace a section that has problems with verifiability, synthesis and original research with your own words that have problems with verifiability, synthesis and original research. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. What's problematic with any statement about alternate theories - is the level of credibility of the theory. It's one thing to theorize about what happened to Mayan culture, but an aircraft crash is not only pretty well investigated, the accuracy of information surrounding it is critical for public confidence - not to mention the impact on the families of the victims. Wikipedia is loaded with enough nonsense to engender disdain as a reputable source, I simply think some reference to these alternate theories should be short, straightforward and directed to a page dealing with unsubstantiated rumors and claims. You have done good work here, the bulk of the article is print worthy.Jettparmer (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Submarines

Why does the article say only the Normandy and a patrol boat were in the area? I read that the Trepang, the Albuquerque and the Wyoming were all a lot closer than the Normandy. Wayne 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This was the paragraph that was in there that I removed:

One theory has the US Navy conducting tests of submarine-to-air missiles, accidentally hitting Flight 800, and then covering up the fatal error. After initial denials, the U.S. Navy later admitted that USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), listed as being armed with 24 Trident II D-5 Ballistic Missiles, commissioned only days before, was conducting sea trials in the area, and that USS Trepang (SSN-674) and USS Albuquerque (SSN-706) were conducting unspecified operations in the area. The Wyoming is indicated to be carrying Trident missiles, but these are ICBMs (strategic nuclear missiles), not SAMs (anti-aircraft missiles).

Other than it being unreferenced, the problem I had with that content was that it established that 4 subs were in the "area" of the TWA 800 crash, and that they carried ICBMs. It seems pointless information establishing their presence when they dont have the capability to shootdown an airplane. If they do have that capability, we need to reference it through Jane's or something established, not just an unsourced rumor. I think the paragraph as it was was slightly POV, as the inference is that the Navy was trying to conceal the presence of these subs for malicous reasons (as opposed to never talking about where they are conducting operations as a matter of policy). The Navy shootdown theory should be presented in the best possible light, and I think to do that we should stick to one scenario (for now I'm assuming that is whatever Lahr or Donaldson thought). One thing to remember is that these alternative theories are mutually exclusive, so I'd rather not adopt a defense lawyer's strategy of attacking the official report by just throwing spagetti against the wall and see what sticks. Inferences and other facts we include should be part of a specific scenario. I think the sub shootdown scenario is too fringe even for most TWA 800 critics. Lipsticked Pig 19:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Exclusions feed conspiracy theories. Why not just say "XY and Z were also in the area but did not have surface to air capability" ? Wayne 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point Wayne, and one simple sentence like you suggested should be included after discussion of the US Navy ships. (something like "In addition to their surface vessels, 4 U.S. Navy submarines were operating in the area, however they did not possess any surface to air missiles.") Got to find a source for that statement, but I think it probably was reported by CNN sometime. Lipsticked Pig 02:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Waste of electrons. Though the Brits, and Israelis, have deployed a submarine to air missile, the US has not. Mark Lincoln 22:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

William Donaldson

OK, a complete re-write that you might not be happy with. Let's argue, and then let me buy you a beer. First, let's drop the pretense that there is some "Associated Retired Aviation Professionals" that is a bunch of old wise men hanging around waiting to investigate mysterious crashes. The ARAP was formed by Donaldson as an advocacy group for the TWA 800 crash, regardless of the members they list on the website, the ARAP was Donaldson, and Donaldson was the ARAP. The "Interim Report" was not a collective work, it is titled: By William S. Donaldson...in cooperation with the ARAP. Sentence 2 of the introduction goes "Like most Americans, I was very concerned when TWA 800 mysteriously exploded..." Sentence 3 starts "I followed the developments in the media..." It is a Aircraft Accident Report in the first-person. I know other people contributed to it, but I think it is only accurate to refer to what "Donaldson wrote.." or what "Donaldson stated..."

Let's avoid any statements such as "the report was submitted to the Aviation Subcommittee.."; as as far as I can tell, that is meaningless. I suppose I could submit something tommorow to a House subcommittee, more important, will they accept it? If James Trafficant or someone else solicited or accepted into the Congressional Record this report, then lets put that in...with a reference please.

What I really wanted to find and put in with references was mainstream media reaction to this report. COULDN'T FIND ANY. Which will surprise none of you, since it only confirms our pre-existing biases (either that the conspiracy to surpress the truth is working just fine, tyvm, or that the report was without merit, and not worthy of peer review). The best I could do was Donaldson's call for Congressional action, and the lack thereof.

The previous version had a few statements of evidence that I dropped. Michael Hull's conclusions are really primary (original) research (please see WP:NOT#OR). Quoting Fred Meyer and Goss and Dougherty as if this testimony was a smoking gun is not a good idea; then then whole article can get flooded with witness statements that support one or the other POV. A seperate article about the witnesses might be a good idea at later point.

Again, the Donaldson Report article is just a stub, and desperately need your attention. Evidence supporting that theory (and hopefully criticisms of it too) should go there. I'd ask you to look and compare this version with the previous one; its about the same amount of space, but this version covers more of the general framework of the report, Donaldson himself, and his place in the general history of the TWA 800 investigation(s) by sticking to very general facts, and is referenced (using the Interim Report to reference Donaldson's opinions, not statements of fact). Lipsticked Pig 09:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is sad to read all this 'opinion' about Donaldson's work by those who haven't personally interviewed even one eyewitness to the crash. I see that my own work (Michael Hull) has been removed from Wikipedia which is OK with me. I saw a missile fired at the Concorde prior to TWA 800 and the FBI would not accept my report. So if you are looking for stuff in the official government files you might not find it and if you manage to get it you will find it is severely redacted. Case in point - what is so 'top secret' about the mathematical calculations done by the government on the zoom theory that they can not be released for examination by aeronautical and mathematical experts? There isn't any good reason except that maybe these supposed calculations don't actually exist. When has the CIA ever had to tell the U.S. public the results of an aircraft accident investigation and why have the hundreds of eyewitnesses still to this day not been allowed to testify publicly about what they saw? And I am called a 'conspiracy theorist'! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissileTWA800 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ray Lahr

This quote: The judge stating in the ruling, "taken together this evidence is sufficient to permit plaintiff to proceed based on his claim that the government acted improperly in its investigation of Flight 800 or at least performed in a grossly negligent fashion.", which is what the WABC reporter wrote in his article[2], needed clarification and context. Actually what is still needed is a person with a good understanding of the law to read over those court rulings and redo those paragraphs. Also what is needed is some follow-up to the final disposition of the case.

Richard Russell talked a lot press in the aftermath of the crash to warrant a couple of paragraphs himself; he should go (chronologically) after Salinger. CNN website has some stories about him, though if his deposition for the Lahr lawsuit was indeed influential (not sure that it was more than any others), then he should get put back in here.

All this:

One theory has the US Navy conducting tests of submarine-to-air missiles, accidentally hitting Flight 800, and then covering up the fatal error. After initial denials, the U.S. Navy later admitted that USS Wyoming (SSBN-742), listed as being armed with 24 Trident II D-5 Ballistic Missiles, commissioned only days before, was conducting sea trials in the area, and that USS Trepang (SSN-674) and USS Albuquerque (SSN-706) were conducting unspecified operations in the area. The Wyoming is indicated to be carrying Trident missiles, but these are ICBMs (strategic nuclear missiles), not SAMs (anti-aircraft missiles).

Another possible alternate theory involving the US Navy is that a missile was fired from the USS Normandy (CG-60), operating 185 nautical miles (340 km) south of the TWA 800 crash site. This is well outside of the range of currently deployed Standard missiles carried by US ships, almost double the range of the current SM-2 Block IIIB versions, and just within the future Block IV ER versions. Even if this were a test of a Block IV version, although there is no evidence for this, at the extreme range in question the engine would have long burned out and the warhead would be gliding. This contradicts the main claim that a missile was involved, which is a number of eyewitness accounts claiming to have seen a missile trail almost vertical under the explosion site. Furthermore, inventories of USS Normandy's missile complement by the US Navy, immediately following the crash of TWA 800, showed no missiles missing from the inventory. The only US military ship within any kind of missile range was the Coast Guard patrol boat USCGC Adak, which was apparently without surface to air capability.

needs some references, and should be summarized a bit better. If one or more elements are particular to say Sanders or Lahr, then they should be included in those sections. I don't like how they are presented as "one theory" or "another" without attribution. Unless someone is associated with them, they aren't "theories", they are "rumors" Lipsticked Pig 04:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem with ALL the 'missile' theories is that missile warheads are designed specifically to inflict intense damage to aircraft. They all have damage patterns which are identifiable. For example heat seeking missiles are unlikely as NONE of the high heat sources indicates any warhead/impact damage (end of Stinger stories) A fragmentation warhead is designed to inflict LOTS of relatively small holes in a specific pattern over an area depending upon how far the missile is from the aircraft. Standard, unless equipped with an IR homer as some are is designed to detonate as it passes the aircraft sending out a donut of devastation. If it were to impact the donut would be even more obvious. As the area which came apart on the aircraft was clearly identifiable, and as there was absolutely no damage typical of a missile warhead, then the theories are pretty far fetched. That is unless the theory is that the missile scared the airplane to death.Mark Lincoln 22:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

First let me say that I am NOT advocating a missile shootdown of TWA800. My comment is merely to correct your apparent misconceptions re: perceived "missile damage." The main problem with your analysis is the assumption that all things work as programmed -- they don't. Bernard Loeb even postulated that a "missile fragment" could well have been responsible for the CWT explosion. (see below)

From the Press-Enterprise on March 12, 1997: A "missile fragment" is Theory A safety board official testifies that evidence in the crash of TWA Flight 800 is consistent with that possibility. From the article: "The National Transportation Safety Board added a theory in the tangled investigation of the TWA Flight 800 crash Tuesday while the agency's investigators took their own samples from seats streaked with a red residue for testing independent of the FBI. A "missile fragment" could have been the culprit, Dr. Bernard Loeb told a House subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. Loeb, director of the NTSB's office of aviation safety, told congressmen that evidence did not support a conclusion that either a bomb or a missile triggered the second-worst civilian air disaster. But he acknowledged the evidence was consistent with the plane being struck by a "missile fragment," introducing another theory in the nearly eight-month investigation. Loeb did not elaborate on where a missile fragment might have come from and members of the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation did not press the issue."

In fact, the local re-crystalization of metal in the CWT as mentioned by Stalcup fits very well indeed with this scenario. Author51 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Zoom climb controversy

The NTSB's simulations of the post-explosion, pre-fireball aircraft trajectory are key to the explanation of witness reports, and so are hotly debated. The CIA animation produced, which received a lot of press coverage when released, is notable in itself. A sub-article on the zoom climb theory, and criticism of it, I think is warranted. There is enough content, and nicely a lot of graphics/multimedia we can use. Actually, there is some pretty shaky stuff on the NTSB side; in one of the reports they admit that there is a 4 second window for when the nose actually broke off; the simulations they came up with only supported the zoom climb theory when the nose came off at the right at the beginning of that window, not any later. Of course, I like to see what data Ray Lahr's simulations and videos were based on too, and if he doesn't present any he should held as accountable as the NTSB. Lipsticked Pig 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I've just been looking around and I found this site [3] which shows witness sketches and has a few animations based on them and a map showing the witnesses locations along with an animation of what they claim they saw overlaid. We may not be able to include the animations but they are of interest to put the witness accounts into perspective (it's one thing to see them drawn but quite another to see them as the witness did). This page (and others) also has lots of links to documents and expert testimony that would be handy for researching this article. Wayne 13:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the CNN video of witness 541 described on that page, who draws her sketch of what she saw (she believes it was a missile) "Watch Levine draw the sketch of what she saw -- :23"[4] Definitely a seperate page of conflicting witnesses testimony, with a map showing their locations, etc., would be great at some point; there are enough out there that can be well-sourced and quite interesting to read. Lipsticked Pig 23:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Goddard's Witness Sketch Analysis OK, I looked a bit more at Goddard's site and reading through it got more and more annoyed. In one example he gave, witness 530, whose sketch (could be the sketch of the FBI agent, we don't know, the FBI screwed this investigation up big-time) Goddard claims "shows a trajectory roughly the same as [witness] 649" If you look at witness statement 530, it clearly states "She does not know whether the ball of flame went straight up into the sky or rose at an angle". That sketch in no way is evidence of angle of trajectory, or in what direction, relative to the witness, if any, the streak of light was travelling. If you look at the original sketch (not the one on Goddard's site), there are notations of "4-5" to the side of missile path, those are the estimated time of flight, not the angle (see the witness statement).

Goddard states "All witness sketches of the "streak of light" found in the official report contradict the official conclusion just quoted. As demonstrated by physicist Thomas Stalcup, the witness sketches show a projectile heading to the crash in the opposite direction of that flown by Flight 800 in their fields of vision." The FIRST THREE sketches that I then randomly looked at, witnesses 551, 572 and 587 show a streak of light going roughly west to east (the same direction as TWA 800), though 551 has it either curving back west or descending later. There is a lot of other statements and conclusions he wrote I had problems with, but the either deliberate or incompetent mischaracterization of the content and uniformity of the witness sketches pretty much was it for me; in 20 minutes I completely lost faith in the guy and his credibility. I don't know about Thomas Stalcup; maybe Goddard misquoted him too. Lipsticked Pig

My apology to Goddard: You know, I looked over the rest of his site Goddard's Journal, and he is anything BUT a conspiracy-theorist tin-foil-hat-wearing nut case. In fact, he seems quite intelligent and reasonable, and its a well-done website. I don't agree at all with his TWA 800 witness sketch analysis though. Lipsticked Pig 01:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Stalcup wrote for you to compare. It is interesting reading and I'd love to see answers. Wayne 05:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not as garbage as you think. He linked to a NTSB analysis of witness statements describing a simulated missile strike (a pre TWA 800 exercise to evaluate witness reliability) and the discrepancies between the TWA witnesses not to mention their descriptions are consistant with the exercise results which is a plus for the missile theory.
I too originally though Goddard wore a tin hat when I first saw the titles of major conspiracy theories on his page. I then read them and found he was debunking them. TWA 800 is actually the only conspiracy he supports. I've spent the last couple of days reading up on the incident and I must say the evidence of a coverup is compelling. The red substance analysed as 3M glue then 3M later saying it can't be (not to mention all the stained fabric then being secretly disposed of so it can't be analysed again), the FBI being filmed by the police altering evidence and then the official who called the police being arrested for calling them, the recovered autopsy shrapnel going missing, the list goes on and on. If the official version is correct then the government are their own worst enemy by leaving such questions unanswered. Instead of letting the FBI get involved they should have let the NTSB do their job and we wouldn't be having this debate. Is it a coverup or is it just plain incompetence? Given the governments track record who can tell? lol. Wayne 04:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, again, Goddard's site is great, and I'm sorry for calling him names. He doesn't believe in any conspiracy theory other than TWA 800, which says alot. I just got mad when I looked at a few witness statements/sketches and they did not at all seem to be what he was describing. You know, I was going to add a screenshot of the red residue on the seats that I took from from Sander's website, but then got worried I was going to be arrested by the FBI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lipsticked Pig (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

This site has photos of Sanders samples and photos of the samples the NTSB tested. Live dangerously. Wayne 05:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theory: Electromagnetic interference

Elaine Scarry apparently wrote a series of articles in the New York Times about EM energy perhaps being the cause of the TWA 800 crash (I never heard about it until I just looked at a version of this article from a year ago). This article [5], at least initially, appears more scholarly and reliable than most of the other alternative theories presented...why was it dropped from the article when Peter Lance's Tony Soprano/Osama Bin Laden connection stayed in with 2 paragraphs? I think it should be put back in. Lipsticked Pig 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG..she is golden! This is great stuff! I NEVER heard about it before; I totally believe her now, hahaha. Check her articles out. Lipsticked Pig 04:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

She also claims EMI downed Swissair Flight 111 and EgyptAir Flight 990. Here is a New York Times article on her and her theory (with her photo). Wayne 06:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

EMI has been ruled out for the simple reason of not generation sufficient energy to ignite the fuel.

I can think of the time a UH-60 was lost due to EMI because it was flying very close to a transmitter antenna.

Must Wikipedia entertain every wild-eyed theory for TWA 800? I have no doubt I can find somewhere some who is certain it was the Bermuda Triangle at work. Mark Lincoln 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My final opinion of Scarry was that it was a fun ride that just didn't pan out. Her inexperience on aviation matters showed often; many times she threw out "possible" examples of EMI-related incidents that had clearly been the result of other factors (example: China Airlines Flight 006). However, she did raise many good points (along with the bad ones), and the general thrust of her articles (well, at least the first one), that knowledge of the effects and mechanisms of EMI is woefully inadequate is important. TWA 800 was apparently the first civil aviation accident that EMI was investigated (by the NTSB) as a possible cause, and NTSB Chairman Jim Hall was quite open to her inquiries. Scarry proposed several possibilities of how EMI could have introduced enough energy into the CWT to meet the ignition threshold (multiple sources, different pathways than those analyzed) that, while not proving anything, left the door open a bit. It's probability is enhanced since it keeps to Occam's Razor: agreeing with all the NTSB findings, and providing an answer to the one unknown (ignition source)...no vast conspiracy or little green men needed. Lipsticked Pig 06:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The chances of EMI inducing a spark deep inside a Faraday cage is very, very slim. It would require a miracle. UH-60 in Germany had unshielded wiring and large openings, and the issue was RFI with controls.

The issue of worn wiring and deterioration of insulation on aging airliners had been an issue for years before TWA 800. I recall reading articles on the problems facing older jet airliners in Av Leak for at least a decade before TWA 800. That the explosion started in the CFT is very clear. That the damage was consistent with a low-order explosion is clear. The only question is where did the stray voltage come from, and that might have been solved had the fuel level sensors all been found (arcing). My father and I were having breakfast the morning it hit the papers. We both figured it was probably a bomb, but you never know until the investigation is over. Now we do, no matter what the ooo-eeee-ooo types want to believe.Mark Lincoln 13:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I got rid of almost all of them; links for FIRO or ARAP are redundant now as they have been used as references in the article itself; the CNN portals are of limited usefulness to a reader for further information...mostly those lists of news stories is useful for editing (references/quotes), so just refer back to previous version of this article when editing/expanding. The Newsday and WCBS retrospectives were mostly just "glurge"; some mention of memorials etc. would be good; those sources would be a good reference but not much use to the reader otherwise. The Suffolk County News article was lumping together Elaine Scarry's theory with Fidis and Owens calling it the "Fidis-Owens-Scarry (FOS) theory", which is not accurate (Scarry has her theory, independent of anyone else). In all these cases there are probably bit and pieces of information that will be useful to expanding the article, but they need to be integrated into the article as such; overall I don't think the meet the WP:EL criteria of a site that provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article

Put FIRO and ARAP back in. They're surely relevant and belong there. Using the above redundancy argument could be used for the NTSB's link as well, and if applied across all of Wikipedia, would likely remove hundreds of thousands of external links. For full disclosure, I am Chairman of FIRO.

Stalcup 22:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Mr. Cashill's wild ideas are promoted in the external links, and since the main objection seems to be one of "redundancy" I have posted a link to my articles. Nothing "redundant" there. Author51 14:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable and non-notable victims

Please see WP:BIO for the guidelines I used for who is "notable".

I deleted many of these previously; I made a better effort to look at them individually, and indeed several of them are notable, even though they don't have a wikipedia page yet. Sylvain Delange, Rico Puhlmann, Dan Gabor, and Michel Breistroff I think all merit inclusion under WP:BIO, and could (and should) have a wikipedia article about them. Jed Johnson I think is close, but he has a Imdb entry (although he directed only that one "film").

I could not find any info on Rodolphe Merieux, other than he was heir-apparent to his father's company; I don't think the qualifies as notable. Courtney Johns is mentioned in the "TWA in the media" section; she is not notable by herself and having her mentioned twice is redundant. Relatives of Wayne Shorter are definitely not notable; I say that even though my favorite band by far is Weather Report. Lois Van Epps, Joe Mantegna's high school teacher, is not notable based on that and I couldn't find any other info on her.

As for the High School French club, generally in accidents like these groups of students, athletes, etc., among the victims get alot of media attention, as was the case here with this group of students (another example would be Pan Am 103 where many students from Syracuse University were on-board). While obviously individually they aren't notable, as a group I think they are (based on media coverage). Probably best if that last line has a reference from CNN or whatever showing the media attention.

I deleted the "Near notable victims" section; while there are exceptions where such a person would merit inclusion in an aircraft accident article (example: in the Pan Am 103 crash, passenger Jaswant Basuta who just missed the flight was briefly a suspect), this information is generally trivial (should be on the Christian Panucci page, not here). I know these are subjective decisions, so if you disagree please let's talk about it here and ask for other editor's opinions too for a collective decision. Lipsticked Pig 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of the witness evidence

This section needs a complete re-write. It appears to be a good summary of a very slanted NTSB report.

But first, it doesn't consider the original Witness Group Factual report, written by a witness group that was disbanded for unclear reasons. That report list 102 witnesses who reported the origin of a rising streak of light. 96 said it rose off the surface, according to this original report.

We conducted an independent review of the witness evidence and got number between the original report's and the final witness group's report. And it should be noted that the final witness group was headed by Dr. David Mayer, with zero experience in interviewing eyewitnesses to airline disasters. His job before this on the Flight 800 investigation was database work for wreckage items. And he was confronted by at least one senior NTSB investigator and Group Chairman about why he decided to change wreckage recovery locations for various wreckage items. His response, according to this senior NTSB official, he didn't want to "confuse the Chairman".

Sorry for the long-windedness of the above, but it is relevant to understanding how and why the final NTSB Witness Study is slanted and in some cases inaccurate. I sat through Mayer's presentation at the final hearing on the crash and had some serious issues with it. Never received a reply from him to my request for clarifications regarding the many problems with his presentation.

Anyone interested in this topic and the problem's with Mayer's analysis (and therefore the present summary of his analysis at Wikipedia), see pages 53 to 66 of the attachments to our petition to the NTSB here: http://flight800.org/FIRO_pet_attach.pdf (5 MB pdf file).

Before I start a re-write, I'd like others' input. And if you're the author of most of this section of Wikipedia, please read the above linked pages.

Thanks. Stalcup 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking SkyBunny's advice and not deleting previous work in this section. SkyBunny's right, it's well written and if nothing else, a record of what the NTSB did. I did add some information and added a link to our organization's witness report and a link to the book "Into the Buzzsaw: Leading journalists expose the myth of a free press", ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristina_Borjesson ) which references this report.

Stalcup 06:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments on recent comments

First, I want to preface my comments by saying that editors here at Wikipedia are not arbiters of fact, and what the article should include and how it is structured doesn't depend on the following arguments. But I do think when I've argued factual aspects of this crash and investigation (and the interpretation of them) previously it helped to understand other points of view, and understanding and being able to try to wear another hat is critical. Special thanks to Wayne, who was always very patient with me in arguing "the other side", even though I'm often a confrontational dick. I'm not saying that I'll ever be convinced that the missile theory is more probable than any other, but without a doubt the more I read and wrote about the NTSB Final Report my estimation of the probability of short in the FQIS causing a CWT explosion dropped way below 50%. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if several of the NTSB board members also considered it to be less than 50%. So the following would be how I'd argue against the above statements and others, and of course would want to hear Dr. Stalcup's response. To his credit I've never seen anything to suggest he is trying to make a single dollar off a book or anything; FIRO is obviously a good faith effort for himself and all others involved. And of course I reserve the right to disagree with him 100%. Afterward though, and more importantly, we need to discuss how to expand and improve this article while still being encyclopedic and not running afoul of Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing and established format/style/presentation issues...which make it very difficult at times to present alternative theories. So here goes the arguments:

LP, thanks for taking the time to review my recent statements here and FIRO's work in general. I just re-read what I wrote too, and it certainly does sound confrontational, which I now regret sounding like. I wrote them soon after reading the Wikipedia's page, which sounded like an unchecked summary of the government's sometimes refuted work.

I hope to be a constructive participant here and will to do all I can to work within Wikipedia's guidelines to improve this article. The main problems I noticed recently are presentations of refuted data an analysis, which I'll discuss some more below.

Stalcup 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Feds, for some reason, only considered damage from small warheads, which leave different signatures than larger warheads that explode much further away from their targets. I was troubled that in the Final Report mention of the possiblity of a missile strike usually was prefaced by "shoulder-launched missile", as if the possibility of a larger missile was not considered. The article currently does refers to the possibility of a proximity detonation of a missile warhead being considered, and when I looked at the Missile Imapact Analysis study that was cited in the Final Report, it stated certain rationales for a larger missile warhead detonation not being considered, including "Larger surface-to-air and air-to-air missile systems...[would] leave clearly identifiable evidence over larger areas of the target than shoulder-launched systems." Supposing a larger warhead detonated farther away does not reduce the expected observed damage on the airplane, which the NTSB states is not present.

There is damage to the aircraft that apparently conflicts with the fuel-air explosion theory, such as the evidence discussed in the paragraph below. But I have found no report that compares this damage to that from larger warhead detonations. Regardless of the government's rationale for not considering damage from large warheads, not considering their signatures when analyzing wreckage in the investigation's only missile analysis report is irresponsible.

Stalcup 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

NTSB lead investigator Bernard Loeb has admitted not ruling out a missile as causing the 'localized recrystallization' of metal in the center fuel tank, for example. The NTSB didn't rule out almost anything in their investigation. They considered the possibility that a missile could have exploded close enough to TWA 800 for a missile fragment to have entered the CWT and ignited the fuel/air vapor, yet far enough away not to have left any damage characteristics of a missile strike. They did not rule this out either, but considered it "very unlikely". Consequently a "gotcha" statement like the above doesn't really mean anything.

Calling the missile fragment penetration "very unlikely" was due to an alleged absence of physical evidence. An absence repeated constantly in the media. The recrystallization is different. This is physical evidence that the NTSB admits may conflict with the fuel-air explosion theory. Unfortunately, this damage isn't even mentioned in the Missile Impact report quoted above. Nor does any report that I know compare this damage with damage from any type of missile.

Stalcup 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And the government's dog sniffing story to explain away the explosive traces on the plane was proven wrong The dog-handler seemed pretty defensive about any suggestion that his exersise was related to the positive tests, understandably. He stated there was no way any of the packages he was using could have leaked any explosive residue, but what did he think his dog was sniffing? And its just incredibly stupid to secret away explosive packages on an in-service airliner...it boggles the mind. Not surprisingly, there was a safety recommendation in the Final Report to stop that practice. But for now, it is irrelevant which airframe he conducted his tests on. The FAA testing that any explosive residue on the wreckage would have completely dissapate in the sea water by the time of revovery (they actually couldn't detect any after 2 days, never mind 2 weeks) infers that those three positive results most likely are the result of contamination. I'm very dissapointed that the bomb-sniffing explanation keeps getting attacked, instead disputing the validity of the FAA test with other, better, evidence that explosive residues do not dissapate so rapidly (I read that testing report, and had some problems with their methodology). I wouldn't be surprised if further testing came up with different results. Nonetheless, that FAA study is the only data out there right now, and needs to be addressed FIRST. An obvious question regarding this issue (which could completely negate the FAA test results): were explosive residues detected on recovered wreckage from KAL Flight 007 or Air India Flight 182?

The gate logs refute this story more than anything else in my mind. And Kallstrom admitted to me that he knew of the problems with this story early on. But he went with it anyway. There were explosive traces detected the wreckage, they weren't false positives as they were confirmed in later tests.

Stalcup 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Explosives are used in missile warheads. But which? I had previously looked on the Raytheon website, and couldn't find the actual explosive contained in the warheads of Standard missiles. However I doubt any SAM missile capable of shooting down TWA 800 would use a combination of RDX, nitroglycerin, and PETN. If no SAM warhead does, proponents of a missile theory are stuck in basically the same boat as the NTSB having to negate 2 out of 3 of those positive results.

I said the above obvious statement to counter repeated claims that there was no evidence of a missile in the wreckage. I'm not a missile expert, but did read that PETN and RDX are combined to form a powerful explosive used in terrorist bombs, Semtec I think it's called. And there is likely a reason for mixing the two.

Stalcup 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Meyer, from his Black Hawk helicopter, tracked the missile over 15 degrees before it exploded at 800's position. NYANG pilot Frederick Meyer when interviewed on January 11, 1997 by representatives from the NTSB, TWA, ALPA, FBI and FAA (the TWA representative was Terry Stacey):

...and I said to people who have said, well, was it a missile? And I said , all I can know is what my body told me at that time, or didn't tell me. And when I looked up at this thing in the air nothing said, missile. Nothing clicked in my mind that said, missile. But then again, the technology of the missiles that I had an opportunity to observe was 20, 25 years earlier. So, I really don't know what it was. It was a streak of light. It appeared to be the same color as the sun. And it occurred to me it could've been something that was -- that was of its own nature; perhaps even light colored by the sun. Cause you know if you see -- at sunset when the sun is lower you'll see clouds or you'll see contrails in the sky, or things. And very often they assume the color of the sun at that point. This, I think, was not a contrail. All right. It -- it didn't have any endurance. And I really don't know what the hell it was. I -- I have not -- I can't recall in my life having had a -- a similar observation.

Several other points during that interview Meyer adamantly repeats the fact that he is not/has not ever stated that he saw a missile. Meyer, who's witness testimony carries more weight because of his experience, has many observations that directly contradict the NTSB findings. But stating that he saw a missile is not accurate. If Meyer was several years later changed his mind and was willing to state he saw a missile, his testimony closest to the event carries the most weight. He states that himself when commenting during the interview on an earlier debrief he gave his NYANG commander immediately after the accident.

And if there's any varience between what I say now and what I say then, that's probably the more accurate because that's exactly what I told him back then. As I say, much closer in time period to the accident than -- than this, six months later

Meyer's most persuasive and interesting testimony has to do with the direction of the streak of light he witnessed (West to East, opposite of what it should have been according to the NTSB). This carries much weight since he was inside the cockpit of his helicopter, heading on a specific compass heading, with ample instrumentation inside the cockpit to enable him (and his co-pilot) to accurately describe the direction of the streak. I find that testimony compelling. However, when Meyer compares his experiences in Vietnam, when he saw fuel storage facilities attacked and explode, and says that those didn't look like TWA 800, I think "Well, no duh." Why would the explosion of a POL storage facility on the ground look anything like mid-air ignition of a 747's fuel tanks? That's anecdotal and not very compelling evidence at all. Nonetheless, I would like a seperate Notable Witness sub-article at some point, and I'd put those statements in there without commentary or analysis. If its notable, verifiable and from reliable sourcing, it should be in.

That's right, Meyer did not say what he saw was a missile, just a streak of light that ended in a military ordinance explosion. He was certain about the military ordinance part of his testimony. And he was rightly being precise in his language about his thoughts at the time.

Other, non-military witnesses first thought they were watching a firework go up off the horizon, and only later concluded it was a missile, after learning it reached Flight 800's altitude.

When the fuel in 800's wings ignited, they appeared like a fireball, red in color. I believe that military ordinance explodes like a bright flash of light, like a white flash-bulb, very quick and sudden (and like many other witnesses reported). Not like a slowly evolving fireball of fuel dropping from the sky.

Stalcup 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But there were 134 witnesses who happened to be looking in the right direction, at the right time. Out of these, 86% refute the official crash scenario. See: http://flight800.org/witness-review.htm Citing facts based on FIRO's Witness Review Study in this Wikipedia article might be next to impossible. It hasn't undergone academic peer-review, or been published in another independent publication that could be considered a reliable source. It is research self-published by an advocacy organization. There is a lack of explanation of the methodology employed, other than this one sentence: "FIRO analyzed each of the 182 accounts to determine whether or not the descriptions of the streak were consistent with the NTSB explanation for it." Contrastingly, the NTSB Witness Group Study Report goes into detail on how they quantified the data within 1,500 witness documents (such as having two document readers working idependently off of identical prepared worksheets categorizing any given account, afterward if both readers' worksheets didn't agree on a categorization, a 3rd reader would review, etc.) Those descriptions of the methodology employed by the NTSB, which occupy over 4 pages of the Witness Group Study Report, are critical because any analysis of the craptastic FBI witness documents is inherently subjective. No matter how much the participants of the FIRO study think they were objective in their analysis, that really isn't possible (and yes, the NTSB's witness report was the product of subjective analysis as well).

I understand not citing this study on its own. However, our witness work was reviewed and published in the book "Into the Buzzsaw" by Kristina Borjesson. Perhaps that book could be cited instead.

Stalcup 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

...it doesn't consider the original Witness Group Factual report, written by a witness group that was disbanded for unclear reasons. It is clearly stated in the Witness Group Chairman's Factual Report that:

That draft report was prepared during a time when the FBI was controlling information about eyewitness accounts; consequently, it was based on limited access to information about the witnesses (...) That early draft witness group factual report received some distribution, but it was an interim - and thus incomplete - document and was not placed in the public docket. This report and the Witness Group Study Report, which are based on significantly greater access to the witness documents, are the official NTSB reports concerning the witness accounts

The hard radar evidence shows that Flight 800 did not climb at all If FIRO's mathematical analysis of the radar data is correct, and the main body of the aircraft accelerated in a climb, that would not match the intuitively expected results. However saying that the main body of the aircraft, after losing 80,000 lbs from the front with the resultant instantaneous center-of-gravity shift, would not immediately pitch up and in fact nose-dived is also counter-intuitive. So, yet again, evidence from this crash might be contradictory. I have no problem with that; I'm used to it. However this image doesn't inspire my confidence, as the graph deceptively (asterix and small print aside) plots altitude as if that was taken directly from radar returns, when there is in fact no valid radar altitude data from TWA 800 after the nose seperated. If the only factors used to calculate altitude on that graph was FIRO's derived airspeed and "the laws of conservation of energy", then I'd say that is VERY simplistic modeling. A 580,000 lb airplane that instantaneously loses 80,000 lbs while retaining the same amount of thrust is going to accelerate. That is of course only one of many factors that would influence airspeed; FIRO's study appears not to have considered any. Lipsticked Pig 09:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A 580,000 lb airplane that instantaneously loses 80,000 lbs while retaining the same amount of thrust is going to accelerate.

No it's not. The force that kept Flight 800 at a near-constant speed before losing electrical power was drag, not weight. And drag surely didn't decrease when 800 lost its nose.

And that image is part of our petition to the NTSB, and is explained in more detail here: http://flight800.org/petition/pet_sect5.htm

Our model is simple, but so is the law of conservation of energy. For the same reason you slow down while riding your bike up a steep hill, a 747 can't climb at the angle shown in government simulations without slowing down either. That's why every NTSB simulation published to date conflicts with the radar data.

Stalcup 03:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of digressing into basic flight dynamics, all airplanes fly with a degree of balance between lift and gravity, thrust and drag. The 747 had just been configured to increase the angle of attack (tail down, nose up) which would alter angle of attack, and thus the lift to drag ratio, while increasing both lift and drag. To climb thrust was added- additional thrust was needed to overcome both increased drag and gravity. The aircraft was climbing at the time the nose came off. That meant that lift exceeded gravity. The aircraft would have been trimmed tail down and when the nose came off the center of gravity moved aft, while the center of lift remained where it was. This would induce a tail down moment, increase the angle of attack, and thus both lift and drag. That same moment would have been enhanced by the nose up moment added by the thrust being below the center of drag. The increase in lift plus the reduction in weight would induce a climb. It was that increase of angle of attack which started the failure of the wing structure. As that was happening the aircraft would have had an upward trajectory until drag and gravity overcame it. In the case of Pan Am 103 the aircraft was trimmed for level flight, power was set for cruise. In that case the pitch up was not sufficient to cause failure of the wing spars, though the aft fuselage failed.Mark Lincoln 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your analysis leaves much to be desired. In fact I don't know anyone with any knowledge on the subject who actually believes that aircraft could climb 3,000ft after the nose departed. Almost every model I've seen indicates a pitch-up and stall within 2-4 seconds after nose departure. Most ascent estimates average between 200-700ft. You may want to read my article for an explanation: Author51 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[6]

Finally radar isn't as 'precise' as you seem to think. Sweep rates affect how old the data is, skin paints are far less strong than transponder responses and there are a multitude of other factors which can effect raw data. For example a radar on the ground tracking an aircraft moving directly away from it would show it descending when in fact it was level, and one climbing might appear to be level - the world isn't flat, the horizon keeps going down. The real world is not as clean and simple as the movies.Mark Lincoln 22:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It is curious by how the 'conspiracy theory' types evince little evidence of how the 'evidence' they cite is derived. The airspace around NY is amongst the most congested in the world. Raw radar data from a number of sources is run through computers and processed to give what is portrayed on the screens of ARTC. TWA 800 was a designated transponder response. It's altitude was being reported by it's transponder. The data was coming from the airplane, not the 'radar.' Suddenly between sweeps, that data ceased and the next time the radar interrogated the transponder there was no data. Just a myriad of faint skin paints off from debris. To interpret the cessation of the transponder data due to the separation of the nose as proof that no climb happened is at best ignorance.Mark Lincoln 14:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we have dispelled with your comment above: "It is curious by how the 'conspiracy theory' types evince little evidence of how the 'evidence' they cite is derived." Even though I am not a "conspiracy theorist." Author51 01:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[7]

Katie Couric

Whoever keeps removing the Katie Couric comment about TWA 900 during 9 11 please stop. This is documented and should go in the media section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.155.126 (talk)

Why can't you use it? This is just stating a fact that she said it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.155.126 (talk)

I've removed this (as several other editors have) because Katie Couric's personal conclusions do not comprise evidence; significance of the comments would require quantitative proof that it has 'fueled conspiracy', which needs reference beyond the primary source of the newscast itself. Skybunny 05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

There are various reasons we cannot use this, including our core policies WP:NPOV and WP:RS.--John 06:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What does some bubble head announcer have to contribute to an intelligent coverage of anything?Mark Lincoln 17:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The climb problem

Dear Wikipedia editors,

The TWA Flight 800 article presently contains some misleading and inaccurate information regarding the crash. The most striking is the usage of a frame (and a link to) an NTSB animation, showing Flight 800 climbing 3,000 feet after exploding.

Confirming the invalid altitude gain in this animation isn't easy, since the animation shows a telescopic viewpoint of 800 climbing--a quite misleading viewpoint. To see why, compare this image ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ntsb_twa_beach_view.PNG ) (frame of animations presently on Wikipedia's 800 page) with a complete view here: http://www.flight800.org/Ntsb3.JPG

This animation of the plane climbing 3,000 feet was created in 1997 by the NTSB from data its own simulation study concluded did not match the radar data. The reason for the conflict, according to this study, was that "the radar data indicates that the aircraft turned North of the preevent course line." See page 10 of NTSB Exhibit 22C here: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/exhibits/Ex_22C.pdf

Other simulations were then run by the NTSB that included the north-ward turn, fitting the radar data better. But even so, the author of this simulation report seemed to be trying to fit the simulation data to 'X vs Y' type plots, without considering significant conflict with 'X vs T' (T for time) plots. See figures 19 and 30 from the above report.

These two figures show that the simulations fell behind Flight 800's radar-tracked course by 1/4 mile only eight seconds into the climb.

This is 4 times greater than the FAA-reported error of +/- 1/16 Nautical mile for individual radar returns. Source: http://www.ntsb.gov/events/twa800/exhibits/Ex_22C_add1.pdf

Stalcup 02:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We pointed out the conflict between the radar data and the simulations at a press conference in Washington DC that C-span covered.

Soon after the press conference, the NTSB conducted several more simulations, in an attempt to get one to match the radar data. The NTSB failed. To date, no government simulation or animation matches the radar data. In fact, all conflict with this data during and *due to* the simulated climb.

For more details on this, please see: http://www.flight800.org/ex_22D.htm

This issue is quite significant. The CIA and NTSB created the animations of Flight 800, not to determine the cause of the crash--what happened after 800 broke in half had nothing to do with the cause--but to convince the public that the eyewitnesses did not see a missile. Indeed, the CIA's video was entitled "TWA Flight 800: What Did the Eyewitnesses See". And the CIA's narrator said that Flight 800 climbing "may have looked like a missile," confusing the eyewitnesses into thinking they saw a missile.

I don't have time to help right now, and may not be checking back in on this page that often, so if any editors have questions, please feel free to contact me through Flight800.org. I sincerely hope that you all will consider the above carefully and decide how to record the history of this rather significant and egregious misrepresentation of reality by our official investigative agencies.

The undisputed facts are: 1) All NTSB simulations published to date fall outside of the radar data's error bars during simulated climbs; 2) The speed of all NTSB simulations drop significantly below the radar-tracked speed of the actual aircraft; 3) Due to the law of conservation of energy, simulations run properly, without a climb or with an immediate descent, will, unlike the government simulations, match the radar evidence. Stalcup 21:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No climb problem at all. With the nose severed the center of gravity shifted well behind the center of lift causing a climb.

There have been two other instances where an explosion - in those cases caused by a bomb caused a similar wreckage pattern due to the pitch-up and travel beyond the nose of the fuselage and wings.Mark Lincoln 17:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Accident Sequence Reconstruction

I have tried to do as requested on the accident sequence reconstruction. Accident reports are written for the technically inclined comfortable with the cant and jargon of the industry. Moreover, they are often separated into sections which make sense for the investigators but not the general public. Associating the details of fire damage presented in the Wreckage Recovery sections, which are 'factual data" with the breakup sequence presented as analysis calls for much cross referencing.Mark Lincoln 18:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Quantity Indication System

I have attempted to add critical data from the NTSB report which was not present in the article.Mark Lincoln 19:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Initial Investigation

I have added a brief description of the wreckage found in each of the three zones and evidence of fire and heat present upon that wreckage. This will aid readers in understanding the Accident Sequence Reconstruction.Mark Lincoln 19:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Accident Investigation

I felt it necessary to add a brief discussion of how an airline accident is investigated and who is involved.Mark Lincoln 20:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed redlinks and Sean Hannity

The redlinked "notable victims" are so borderline notable its VERY unlikely they will ever have a wikipedia page. I had previously deleted them, they were reinserted, and after reading on them some more I decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. But if you were to create a page for them, it would be tough going to survive an AfD. Feel free to prove me wrong. Sean Hannity's opinion on the TWA 800 crash is non-notable. Lipsticked Pig 04:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Added CVR and FDR section

I can't imagine why this was not there, but there was pertinent data which is substantial. As always I have attempted to translate jargon and cant into English.Mark Lincoln 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to perform requested elucidations and expansions. In doing so I tried to spare readers who might be tempted to delve into the NTSB report on certain points by citing the page or at least section where the information translated resides. I feel it is a little better than just saying "it's in there somewhere, you find it."Mark Lincoln 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I chose to repeat a little information which was covered in the section about the flight. That was the comments of the pilot and subsequent clearances. My purpose is to bridge the first indication of unusual electrical events - the 'crazy" fuel flow information coming from the FQIS and the two transient noises on the Captains CVR channel in the last second - to say nothing of the explosion at the end. I felt that any coverage of the pertinent CVR information required a degree of continuity between the first and last events. Honest, I am not trying to write a book here.Mark Lincoln 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline?

What kind of timeline do you think is necessary? From the time they started boarding passengers to when the NTSB released it's report? Or from push back to impact?Mark Lincoln 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

FBI witness statement shown

If a reader were to merely glance at the "Example of a FBI witness statement summary" they might not comprehend that all that has been 'censored' is the name and address of the witness. It might well be construed to be an example of 'government censorship" to "hide the real cause of the accident." Thus I am editing the caption.Mark Lincoln 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Current problems with this article

It's too long. We should try to limit to 50KB.
Too technical. I'm partially responsible for this flaw. As much as possible, use of technical terms and aviation jargon should be minimized, and where absolutely necessary need to be explained/wikilinked. The purpose of this encyclopedic article is to provide information to a person NOT interested in aviation.
There isn't enough detail on the FBI investigation; the main body of the article should not strictly be a summation of the NTSB Final Report.
The footnotes can't be page-specific to the Final Report, otherwise they will be 300 of them. For information from the NTSB, use just the Final Report and say 6 of the individual Group Chairman's Factual Reports for a total of 7 references. Write the information in such a way with keywords/phrases that the reader can search via Adobe Acrobat for the specific page that fact came from.
POV-pushing of, example, John Fiorentino. Flooding that section with footnotes, all from the ARAP-advocacy site, does not increase the validity of the information. Fiorentino (and most of the Donaldson section, which I wrote) have to go unless better sourcing can be provided.

Again, Mr. Pig makes hasty and incorrect judgments. First, his assertion that ALL of the references provided, or "footnotes" were "all from the ARAP-advocacy site" is simply garbage. References were (re: the critical statements) to FOIA documents obtained by Ray Lahr, through his lawsuit vs. NTSB, et al. The public dissemination of said information was accomplished on Aug. 24, 2007, in the form of a Press Release written by myself. The "flooding" of the section with footnotes relates solely to the mention of numerous articles I have written on the subject. The fact that most are on the ARAP site is irrelevant. Author51 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also ask Mr. Pig, since I have been accused of "POV-pushing" if he has any idea what my "POV" is on this subject? There was no POV-pushing, unless you consider FACTS derived from an official government document as POV-pushing. Author51 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan-cruft trivia, as always. Instead of a trivia tag, Wikipedia needs a Trivia Roach Motel...trivia goes in, but doesn't come out.
The same information being repeated in the article in several places.
Not enough images.

The article was just rated as B-Class on the quality scale by WikiProject Aviation. In its current form, I think that is actually higher than it deserves. Lipsticked Pig 06:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed a series of paragraphs added by Author51 and MissileTWA800. Their references were to a missile advocacy website, and a research website which Author51 himself says he penned on his user page. I believe this is more than sufficient to say that this stands as original research and should be left out of this article. Paragraphs removed reference http://hometown.aol.com/missiletwa800/ (advocacy) or from http://www.fiorentinoresearch.com/ (penned by Author51). Please see WP:OR, which explains this in detail.

Let me provide the source documents HERE for all to reference. This pertains to the new evidence which I posted, and was so hastily removed without merit. I hope everyone here has an open mind. First, the NEW evidence: [8] and the initial evidence released by FBI to Capt. Lahr: If you wish to wade through the 585pgs. as I did please be my guest. The new evidence was intially sent to Lahr completely Redacted and can be referenced here [9] Because I am not an unreasonable person, I will save you the trouble of wading through 585pgs. The relevant info. is labeled as: 144-145 and can be found on pgs. 190 and 191 of the pdf. Author51 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was completely underwhelming. More talk about MANPADS ("diameter of a tennis ball", "Stinger", "Redeye") which couldn't reach TWA 800's altitude. Those were 5 minutes I could have spent doing laundry; you tricked me. Though I did start laughing when the witness statement mentioned the guy had "dark hair and a moustache." It's was like right out of the movie Borat. Here is my theory: Mrs. White, in the Library, with the Rope Lipsticked Pig 00:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Mr. Pig, you've missed the ball again, the reference is to a missile launch on 7/12/96, or 5 days before TWA800 exploded. the event was videotaped. The tape was analyzed by DIA:

In this latest development, the FBI has released, apparently in error, a formerly totally redacted analysis of a video shot on L.I., New York on July 12, 1996. This was just 5 days before the July 17, 1996 disaster.

The video, analyzed by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) on July 23, 1996 "advised that after a visual analysis of both the videotape as well as a number of still photographs taken from various portions of the tape, the phenomenon captured by (redacted) appeared to be consistent with the exhaust plume from a MANPAD missile." While the document indicates there were scanned images of the still photographs attached as an appendix, Capt. Lahr received no accompanying photographic images.

Apparently, you need to brush up on your reading skills. Try reading my ref. #1 pdf above Author51 01:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about a missile that couldn't have possibly reached TWA 800's altitude...AND was observed on a different day. Very good. Lipsticked Pig 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your altitude comment is just opinion -- wrong, I might add. Yes, I see MANPAD's fired in the air every day around here - don't you? Apparently, FBI and DIA thought it was significant, and frankly anyone with half a brain would think so to. Author51 02:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Yes, I see MANPAD's fired in the air every day around here" ...Michael Hull does too, go talk to him. Lipsticked Pig 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Quite obviously all here can see that you are an "objective" editor of Wikipedia content. For your information re: your altitude misconception. Just one example: Stinger (FIM-92A/B/C/D): The Stinger is similar in capabilities to the Russian Igla series. More recent versions are equipped with a cooled two-color, infrared-ultraviolet detector that discriminates between flares and the target. Stingers are able to effectively engage targets head-on, from behind and from the side. The missile's maximum range is 4800 meters, which is comparable to the Igla, but it has a much shorter minimum range (200 meters versus the Igla's 800 meter minimum). It is one of the fastest MANPADS missiles, traveling at Mach 2.2.7 Author51 02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[10] [11]

I think the problem here, but I am not sure, is the difference between "range" and ceiling". You can see at the FAS website http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/stinger.htm the ceiling is 10,000 feet. It can probably go on a slant range of 4800 meters, as quoted on the link you gave. Lipsticked Pig 03:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For someone who isn't sure, you have very strong, (if not misguided opinions). That isn't the only missile mentioned there. The plane could be hit at 13700. Unless you think the FBI trawled the area looking for manpad parts just for the exercise? Author51 03:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, let's (both) cool it down a bit. Lipsticked Pig 03:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also very relevant to this discussion are the policies regarding reliable sources:

The entire section concerning WP:RS#Aspects of reliability but especially
WP:RS#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
WP:RS#Original research is not a reliable source
WP:RS#Self-published sources (online and paper)

Skybunny 13:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, more fluff. The references included a Press Release, which I indeed did pen, and a reference to an FBI document obtained through the FOIA. Perhaps the FBI qualifies as "unreliable." Author51 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you might explain how an official FBI document obtained through the FOIA doesn't qualify as an "exceptional source." Author51 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is not "the FBI". The source is the website of Ray Lahr, as what is linked. This source went on record with ABC news to say: I believe that I could show that the zoom climb never happened. If the zoom climb never happened then they've got to find out what the eyewitnesses saw and the only logical conclusion there is is that they saw a missile.[12]

One of the tenants of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability. When discussing burden of evidence, it has this to say: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. (Reliable and published source is my emphasis, but reliable and published have specific meanings in this context:)

(From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.) Websites and advocacy websites are fairly low on this scale, regardless of the truth of the facts at hand. Verifiability trumps truth. Again, Wikipedia:Verifiability: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source

The point of this policy discussion is twofold. Firstly, I will not discuss the facts of this incident, nor is my opinion on any particular set of facts relevant. To this end, you will see me discuss Wikipedia policy, and not "facts". If I must, I will discuss sources (which is the foundation of Wikipedia), but I will not discuss facts.

A "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers" putting its own journalistic integrity on the line to reach a different conclusion based on this document would speak for itself as a point of sourcing. Skybunny 01:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Lahr's comments on the zoom-climb have absolutely no bearing on the source at issue. The document is GENUINE, and was obtained through Lahr's FOIA lawsuit against NTSB et al. I believe the FBI IS an "exceptional source" How else would you provide a linkable reference on an internet site? In other words if this FOIA document was reproduced in the NY Times for instance, it would then be "reliable?" Author51 01:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the source of this document is Ray Lahr's website, and Lahr was the plaintiff in the case that produced this document, Lahr's comments on the zoom-climb not only have bearing, they reflect completely upon his standing as an objective source and as the publishing source of the document. Anyone can publish a website, and claim any piece of information as fact. Whether the document represents fact is, as I have already said, beside the point.

A satisfactory definition of a source for this PDF would be the court which published the document in full (preferrably in pdf format so it might be checked), or a Wikipedia standard reliable source which uses this document in the context of the article written. The document itself can only be used to state what the document actually says. If the document is used to draw conclusions beyond those already reached by the document, this is an instance of original research. Skybunny 02:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I would certainly hate to debate you with my mere 15 years of legal experience, but your inability to differentiate between Lahr's opinions on the zoom-climb and documents received as the result of a federal FOIA lawsuit are arbitrary and capricious. The first assumption you make is that Lahr is incorrect in his doubts re: the zoom-climb. Unfortunately for your position, his lawsuit demonstrated otherwise. His conclusions, (right or wrong) as to the implications of a no zoom-climb scenario are superfluous. Author51 02:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did want to make a brief point re: our exchange above. (Although for the life of me I don't know why I am wasting my time). You seem to be under the misguided assumption that Ray Lahr made some "conclusions" re: the zoom-climb from the pdf document at issue. That is simply wrong. The FBI document in question relates to a possible missile launch on 7/12/96 or 5 days PRIOR to the TWA800 explosion. It has no relevance at all to the "zoom-climb." That is what I reported in my small addition to this page. In fact, there were no "conclusions" reached by anyone. Just a simple report of what the documents stated. Author51 22:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I read carefully through the PDF that you linked to, as well as surrounding portions from the more redacted (longer) version. We seem to have drifted from the original reasons why I removed this material, so let me restate where I think this source is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Firstly, this edit[13] is autobiographical. Wikipedia frowns upon such additions. Please see WP:SOAP, subsection 3: Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

According to Wikipedia:Verifiability, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The document purports to be an FOIA document drawn up by the FBI. This is neither verifiable nor from a website Wikipedia would class as a reliable source. Due to the fact that a reader is asked to take on faith that the document is genuine, it falls under the class of a self published source. Wikipedia's policy on these states: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. As has been previously stated on talk page, from WP:V, Wikipedia has a standard for this: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.

The third paragraph in your addition [14] does not sufficiently explain that the photographs were taken five days before the TWA 800 crash. Indeed, there is no logical link made in Ray Lahr's document between the event of the missile plume photograph on July 12, and the crash of TWA 800 on July 17.

The reasoning in your first paragraph is circular. In your second paragraph you seem to intimate that Lahr has somehow manufactured the reams of documents sent to him under his FOIA lawsuit. This of course is bunkum. In your third paragraph you indicate that it is not sufficiently explained that the photographs were taken 5 days before the TWA 800 crash. Yet in the news release cited that is plainly stated, and of course you seem to have deduced that 7/12/96 is not 7/17/96. Only a cretin would be unable to make that deduction. As for your assertion of no logical link between the events of 7/12/96 and 7/17/96, you may want to ask yourself why the FBI would forward to DIA for analysis a videotape which had no logical link to the event in question. Now, I agree, perhaps it means nothing that someone was apparently firing MANPADS in the air only several days before TWA 800 exploded, and in the same general vicinity of the crash. Or, that the FBI trawled extensively looking for MANPAD parts. I don't know, you tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Author51 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been lurking in this thread for only a little while, so I may be out of line, but I think that Author51 is missing Skybunny's point here. Whether or not the document is manufactured is immaterial - it only matters whether it is verifiable. Without a way to verify that it's genuine, can it be included as a reference? It doesn't seem so from what I read of Wikipedia policies. --Crs12 21:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I do understand the technicalities relating to this subject. However, based on a thorough read of your comments and Skybunny's it becomes apparent that there is a fatal flaw in this entire policy. First, publication of the document in the NY Times for example is no more guarantee of it's genuiness than posting on Lahr's website. So, unless one holds the document in his hand, sends it to a questioned document expert, there effectively is no way to verify that it is genuine. I have 15 years legal experience, and I can tell you, I could stonewall just about every reference in this article if it were my desire to do so. So what we have here unfortunately is a bias toward sources, i.e., the NY Times is more "reliable" than say World Net Daily (something which I personally wouldn't argue with) but that is just MY opinion. The definition of "mainstream" in this instance seems to be self-serving. I also would like to say, that it is extremely unusual to see ANY FOIA documents reproduced during the normal course of journalism. For instance on a story let's say again appearing in the NY Times, the editor's may request the documents for verification, but it would be unlikely that they would in fact publish them. So the exercise becomes quite burdensome. Some references might point to the decision of the court in this matter, however, finding sources which might "publish" those documents which satisfy Wikipedia criteria would be difficult. Author51 13:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Might there be any of those 'reliable' sites that you know of that have referenced the FOIA document on Lahr's website as a verified document? That would probably satisfy the verifiability requirement, I'd have thought. I understand your view that the Wikipedia policies on verifiability and original research can be burdensome, but this is their website, and they're entitled to install whatever policies that they deem appropriate. If you think they're fatally flawed, then you should go to the policy talk pages and discuss it there. This page would be the wrong forum for that. --Crs12 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph is pure opinion, and falls under WP:SOAP.

My purpose here is not to exclude this information from Wikipedia, but to see that it is included in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's long established policies. Skybunny 05:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I forked it

I think this was long overdue, the article was far too long and the only way to expand, for instance, alternative theories on TWA 800 was a fork. So now there is a TWA Flight 800 alternative theories page. Please see various 9/11-related pages (September 11, 2001 attacks vs. 9/11 conspiracy theories) or the John F. Kennedy assassination page as an example of how this is the accepted way to deal with, no offence intended, conspiracy theories.

Frankly, I have no problem with your "forking" the article. What I do have a problem with is your bias toward red penciling eveything with which you don't agree. Your reference above to "conspiracy theories" is rather humorous. Or, at least your positioning me on the "alternative theories" section. The only things I have posted were news items backed by irrefutable documentation. I never gave any opinion as the cause of the 800 disaster, sans my comments about calling for a Congressional Investigation. As for the JFK assassination example, I am the author of a forthcoming book on the subject entitled: "Return to Reason" which includes an introduction by Dr. J.K. Lattimer (if you haven't heard of me, perhaps you've heard of him?). It's a NON-CONSPIRACY book, the subtitle of which is "Evidence of Disguise and Deception by the Critics of the Warren Report" How odd you would place ME in the conspiracy section of TWA800. It's one thing to want verification for theories, and another to ignore evidence which doesn't suit your taste.

You have YET to address my recent citations re: new evidence. Author51 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rather than anyone responding to the facts, they request re-writes on a discussion page. I think my responses flow pretty well. But then again, I look at closed discussion documents all day long. Why not just post a rebuttal instead of nitpicking? Author51 23:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The alternative theories page is now ready to be expanded and improved upon. One piece of advice: Stuffing it with factoids and links is not what is needed. Organization and good prose are. Otherwise you end up with this: [15] Lipsticked Pig 16:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The $1000 bill?

Does anybody remember reading about a US $1000 bill being seeing floating in the water over the wreckage and recovered? Also, wasn't there a Picasso painting on board the plane? --Ragemanchoo 13:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nationalities of passengers

From: "THE CRASH OF FLIGHT 800: THE PASSENGERS;Reunions and Homecomings Never Fulfilled and Sudden End to a Vacation," The New York Times

And: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/TWA.Flight.800.2.236315.html

I'm working on a listing of nationalities - Does anyone else know about any others on this flight?

I counted Rico Puhlmann as a German, but was he a dual citizen?

- - Missle? ***

Howabout adding this for thought: [16]

Nationality	Passengers	Crew	Total
France	42	0	42
Germany	1	0	1
Israel	1	0	1
Italy	8	0	8
Norway	2	0	2
Sweden	1	0	1
Spain	1	0	1
United States	0	18	0
Total	212	18	230

WhisperToMe 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Missing from this report

Associated Press reporter Pat Milton spent some years covering the FBI investigation of the TWA crash and her 1999 book In the Blink of an Eye makes saome remarkable charges. These include:

1. The leading FBI scientist who examined TWA 800 cabin remnants recovered from the ocean deep informed the lead FBI investigator that there was no evidence of an explosive device as cause of the tragedy, and that accordingly he believed there had been no rocket or missile attack. The lead investigator publicly accused him of effeminacy, rejected his opinion, and froze him out of further investigation. The scientist's opinion was of course endorsed by the final NTSB report on the cause of the accident.

2. The FBI investigation, heavily aimed at terrorists rather than other mechanical and technical issues, probably cost about $100 million, and added nothing to resolving the issues before it. Some FBI activities obstructed the NTSB's operations in the matter, thus slowing the NTSB investigation.

Turning to another book, the former FBI director Louis Freeh's autobiography, we see he refers to his lead TWA 800 investigator in glowing professional terms, while making no mention whatsoever of the TWA 800 flight or ensuing investigation. This suggests a certain embarrassment in the director for this long, costly and extremely expensive bureau exercise. It seems reasonable to assume that the FBI's investigation of this matter was as much a power grab as anything else. The FBI certainly grabbed much power at the the accident and plane reconstruction sites, but there seems little reason to believe that this was exercised soundly, or in the interests of the American people.

At the very least, the Milton book belongs in the list of references on the TWA 800 page. I find it remarkable that it doesn't, so far. 121.44.113.94 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1996 article about Saudi pilot seeing a "green flare" - where does this go?

I found this: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E5D9173EF930A25751C1A960958260

Where does this go in the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

NTSBwatch's report on supersonic detonation

The NTSBwatch report appears to from a non-peer-reviewed website that is able to publish whatever it wants to. I'm looking at the report and it seems like Stalcup is putting too much faith in extrapolation calculations of velocity averages taken from radar records that span 8 seconds. He's extrapolated back to Mach 4 initial speed on one debris field, which seems quite a stretch. I'd like to hold off on using this cite as definitive proof until we get a rebuttal from official sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no discussion, I'm pulling the cite. Binksternet (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WNBC-TV Special Report/Prank Call

During the intial minutes of the TWA 800 incident, WNBC-TV4 in New York City interrupted their regular programming with a special news report.

TV reporter Chuck Scarborough introduced a person, who he described as a spokesman from the U.S. Coast Guard. When this person got on the air they said, "HOWARD STERN! BABA BOOEY! HOWARD STERN! BABA BOOEY!".

Scarborough cut off the prankster/impersonator and ended the special report quickly (although Scarborough did appear visably livid).

Perhaps a passage about this special report/prank call should be added to the article given the fact that it was contemporaneously watched by 100s of 1,000s (maybe even more than a million) TV viewers in the NYC metropolitan area.

72.82.192.248 (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:PamLychnerdaughtersStatue.JPG

The image Image:PamLychnerdaughtersStatue.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fuel tank explosion image

Your picture of an exploding fuel tank has a description which is in error. The picture is not a "fuel air" explosion. It is a propane air explosion as the investigators were not able to get jet A fuel to explode. Arydberg (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(moved comment to bottom) Actually, the source doesn't say that they weren't able to get Jet A to explode: the test was to approximate the effects of an explosion, not to prove its feasibility with Jet A. And a propane/air explosion is, in fact a classic FAE: it's not limited to jet fuel. That said, a bit more clarity might be in order, provided it can be crafted without creating a paragraph-length caption. Acroterion _(talk) 18:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It is true that they did not say they could not get jet fuel to explode but if they did they were remiss in not pursuing it. The only conclusion possible is that they were not able to get it to explode.

Arydberg (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Who wants to work with hot jet fuel vapor when you just want to see what structural damage is produced when things go boom? Propane's way more controllable, quantifiable and repeatable. In any case, Wikipedia is not the place for statements beginning with "the only conclusion possible is...": we call that original research, and remove it. You may wish to look for the reasons behind the use of propane in this particular case, rather than making assumptions. Acroterion _(talk) 03:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This footnote states (255): "Initially, these tests were performed using single component hydrocarbon fuels (methane and propane) to validate the experimental procedures and test results when compared to previously published research on these fuels. However, subsequent tests were performed using Jet A fuel/fuel vapors." There is extensive discussion of the methodology of these tests, which I haven't gone through it all, but there's no statement that the investigators were not able to ignite Jet A vapor. The published, referenced conclusion is a fuel vapor explosion. Therefore, that's what the article says. Acroterion _(talk) 03:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I see. And if the "published referenced conclusion" is that the moon is made of green cheese do you accept it? I suppose the answer is yes. At least that's the way Wikipedia is defined. Thats OK I suppose. It seems that there are two types of approaches to this crash. One is that the NTSB is God and what they say is right by definition. The second that there is something wrong here. It takes a little free thinking but this crash is full of so many many outrageous conclusions and acts on the part of the investigators that any knowledgeable person realizes that either there is a cover up or the investigating team(s) were totally inept. Arydberg (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Also in any case we are off the subject. My comment relates to the controversy surrounding this crash. As there is still some doubt about it's cause I think you should tell the truth and not use captions that are false. Arydberg (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As with 9/11 articles, the article reflects the consensus of mainstream sources, with alternate opinions given weight according to their sourcing and currency, and an "Alternate theories on ..." article when appropriate. If the moon is, in fact, said by NASA to be made of green cheese, and the astronomical community backs it up, then Wikipedia will state that that's a big ball of green cheese up there in the sky, as they are the most authoritative sources on the subject. The caption is, in fact true: whether it's a simulant fuel or jet fuel seems to me to be immaterial for a caption, and a lengthy discussion of propane vs. jet fuel gets into areas of undue weight. Acroterion _(talk) 19:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

You may be right. If propane can explode in a fuel tank that seems to me like proof that kerosene can explode also. This is why the government has been so quick to cut all the red tape and inert all fuel tanks. (Admittedly it still has not been done but it has only been twelve years so far. These things take time).

And the public hearing. The government was very wise to exclude the 600 or so eyewitness. After all his was a PUBLIC hearing. Not a WITNESS hearing.

We all know that what the witness really saw was the zoom climb theory. This theory states that when the nose falls off an airliner the flying characteristics are improved and one half mile is added to the altitude.

And those strange people from Seattle who say that the cg moved from 22.5 % to 57.8 % of the MAC. What does Boeing know about airplanes anyway.

And the flight data recorders. Of course it took a week to recover them. Those waters are known to be full of lobsters and to mistake a lobster in the recovery would be embarrassing.

I have to go now. It is time for me to sit in a corner in my tinfoil hat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, as we are getting away from artcle improvement, as you have observed. Acroterion _(talk) 16:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyone editing currently?

This article is pretty nice, very good work to those who have worked on it. Anyone currently editing? Beam 04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Memorial/Nationalities Difference

In the memorial section, it says that it features the "flags from the 14 countries of the victims".

However, in the "nationalities" section, it has the following countries: 1 - Algeria 2 - Belgium 3 - Denmark 4 - France 5 - Germany 6 - Ireland 7 - Israel 8 - Italy 9 - Norway 10 - Spain 11 - Sweden 12 - United Kingdom 13 - United States

So is it either an error, or which country is missing? (I don't want to correct the number in the memorial in case it is correct.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.