Talk:TWA Flight 800

Microwave Theory

Anyone heard of the ex-CIA guy David Morehouse's claims that the military had a botched microwave weapon that brought down Flight 800? http://web.archive.org/web/20030629090320/nexusmagazine.com/psispy1.html 76.123.131.111 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Missile theory

Although if it was a missile the likely perpetrator is the U.S. Navy.

Didn't a handful of different witnesses report seeing something fly/shoot up to meet the plane right before the explosion? --Ragemanchoo 13:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need a bit of backing up for this rather bald statement. In understand that Pierre Salinger and others have fingered the U.S. Navy, but their arguments seem very fringe-ey to me. A bit more explanation that just this one sentence seems in order. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Drye (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 October 2001 (UTC).

No more fringe-ey than the idea of a terrorist missile. In my opinion a navy accident is many times more probable than a terrorist missile. The recent incident in Russia with the Israeli plane for example. There are some interesting web-sites supporting the friendly fire POV. But an on-board accident is more likely than both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.64.xxx (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 October 2001 (UTC).

Although if it was a missile the likely perpetrator (source is perhaps less inflammatory?) is the U.S. Navy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coasting (talk • contribs) 17:16, 26 October 2001 (UTC).

I was speaking to someone who worked in the defense industry a while ago, and he seemed sure that it was indeed a missle that downed the 747. And what good is this fourth or fifth-hand information coming from a semi-anonymous source? Jack squat. I expect that even if it is true, that all the damning evidence has long been destroyed. So it is likely impossible to disprove the official explaination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC).

It's worth being aware of the value of eyewitness reports of air accidents, or more to the point, their lack of value. In general, the accounts of non-technical eyewitnesses are very suspect indeed. If a Cessna 172 runs out of fuel and crashes and five people see it, the investigator usually discovers, after interviewing witnesses, that four Boeing 747s simulteanously exploded in mid-air. This is not to say that eyewitness accounts are of no value, simply to make the point that a competent air safety investigator ponders them very carefully before according significance to them. Now I am not suggesting that we dismiss Donaldson's theory because of this: he is a careful worker and has amassed enough evidence to raise genuine doubts. But we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions either. Also, we should remember that fuel tank explosions caused by faulty wiring are a well-known and demonstrably real thing. Just last year, for example, an RAAF F-111 had exactly this happen. The fleet has since had its wiring renewed - and IIRC, the same thing was done with the 747 fleet after the Flight 800 disaster. Tannin 01:30 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

After reading the book Into the Buzzsaw by Kristina Borjesson, which dedicates about 50 pages to the crash, and subsequent cover-up, of TWA 800, I find it very disturbing to see the final paragraph of this article belittle the notion that the plane was shot down by a missile. This is the conclusion of many award winning investigative journalists, not a few conspiracy nuts. I'm editing the last paragraph to remove the notion that this is merely a conspiracy theory, as well as the line that there is "little corroborating evidence." I also plan to make serious changes to the alternate theories section in the near future, detailing some of the evidence supporting the missile theory, and possibly also evidence of a cover-up. I will post the changes here before editing the article. - TalkHard Nov. 4, 2003

All eyewitness interviews i have seen say something like "..i heard a bang looked up at saw a missle streaking upward.." The problem with these statement is that it has a complete disregard for the differences between the speed of light and speed of sound. It is far more likely they heard the original fuel explosion, looked up and saw the fuselage rising (remember the sound and what people see are out of sync by substantial amount). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.16.20.7 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

Excellent point. In the research I have done on this disaster, this has come up, but it seems that there are not references to human psychology. Perhaps there was a delay, but when the witness told the story the delay was suppressed (I am no psychologist, but it makes sense). I think the witness accounts are important to the article. --StatsJunkie 15:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "likely perpetrator" seems to express point-of-view. Should be changed. Or at least change the word perpetrator to something more neutral. StatsJunkie 15:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

In the National Geographic documentary of this flight, Naval action is ruled out. --Tuvok 00:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"Major Fred Meyer has made the assertion that he saw TWA 800 shot down while piloting one of the first helicopters to arrive at the TWA 800 crash site, based on the distribution and appearance of wreckage"... how could he have seen it shot down 'based on the distribution of the wreckage'? If he only saw wreckage, he did not see the plane get shot down and if he saw the plane shot down there would be no reason to mention the distribution of the wreckage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.5.221.118 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

I question whether much space at all should be given to the various missile conspiracy theorists. The aircraft was beyond the range of, below the radar horizon of, and climbing away from the only USN ships anywhere near.

The aircraft was climbing and above the altitudes where most MANPADs can reach. Chances of acquisition by even the best from a head on aspect at that altitude would be very low.

There was no evidence of any warhead damage.

The article could be improved by spending less time on the most impossible of the conspiracy theories. Mark Lincoln 22:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, stay away from the conspiracy theories, but stick to the facts. The facts point to a missile hitting the plane, and yes, there was evidence of a missile. 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.

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. And the government's dog sniffing story to explain away the explosive traces on the plane was proven wrong (see below). Explosives are used in missile warheads.

Major Meyer, from his Black Hawk helicopter, tracked the missile over 15 degrees before it exploded at 800's position. And Meyer told investigators he can tell the difference between fuel explosions and high energy ones. He said that it was definitely military ordinance that brought down 800, not any fuel-air explosion.

But don't rely on a cherry-picked witness statement, even if that witness flew overland rescues in Vietnam. For the witness statements to have any value, they must be reviewed based on when their observations began. Out of the 670 eyewitnesses, most began watching after 800 erupted into a fireball, well after the initial explosion. 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

Stalcup 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a missile causing the downing of the flight. Missiles, like bombs, leave very distinctive damage patterns. The wreckage still exists and it proves that a missile did not cause the loss of the aircraft.Mark Lincoln 19:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Look this argument for and against the missile theory is best suited to a aircraft enthusiast forum not an encyclopedia. This discussion page is for how to imprvove the article not whether or not the american government lied about the deaths of 230 people. If you want to debate do it somwhere else. Wiki235 20:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite I rather believe the plane was shot down by the missiles according to the eye-witnesses and the lie made by the US Government, this article would still follow the official report issued by NTSB and FBI. It is sad but that's the policy. May those victims rest in peace. Mike86 16:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Passengers

Not to seem insensitive but is Marcel Dadi famous enough to be the only person on the plane specifically mentioned by name? --Golbez 20:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, top portion only mentions the affluent that were aboard 800. Unless that particular editor can provide a list of all passengers, I think their exclusion of the others is ignorant to say the least. Panda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.159.225.10 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

mandatory ID

It's interesting to note that this incident was the initial trigger for the government to introduce a mandatory ID on flights rule - even though terrorist action was later ruled out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.124.4.220 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 17 August 2004 (UTC).

SM-2 ranges

The article used to state that 800 was within range of the SM-2 Block IV ER. However, reading over various sites, it appears this missile has not yet been deployed to the fleet. The only reference I can find is that the CG 70 and CG 73 recieved the missile in 1999, but it is not clear if this was operational or for testing, and the context suggests the later (the same section notes another boat acting as the testbed for'...). Many other references suggest that the missile is still not ready for widespread deployment due to various problems, and that general deployment is budgetted for 2007.

The Block IIIB, which is the current deployment version (baring the above) has a range of up to 100 miles, well outside the range of TWA 800.

So, does anyone know for SURE if the SM-2 Block IV/ER was fitted to the CG 60 or not? It should be easy enough to find out.

Maury 13:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You may have already seen these links [1] [2]; they definitely make it sound like it's not in service yet. But would this really matter to a conspiracy theorist? Perhaps this incident is one of the reasons they've been delayed in getting into service. Surely the Navy simply covered up the fact that they'd fired a missle; who could second-guess them? It's just too easy to speculate around such obstructions to the theory. ;) Thanks for cleaning up the section! —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:43, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Photo?

I am also curious about this portion:

Soon after, a photo that a passenger of a North American Airlines plane arriving at JFK supposedly took, seemed to support the missile theory because the "photo" showed a "missile" missing the NA Airlines jet narrowly.

What exactly are the quotes for? Is it, as I read it, implying that the photo in question was a fake or doctored? If so, why is it even in this article?

I can't find any source of this on the 'net, where I would expect to on at least one conspiracy page.

Maury 13:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I assume those quotes are there because they're only claims? And that the "photo" and "missile" don't have any "concrete" proof. Are there no pictures of the actual crash though? I don't see why we can't have one of those up... Mrtea 01:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the first I have read about a photo. I did read about a passenger on a (US Airways?) flight that videotaped an object streak under the jet from left to right, and other pilots confirmed the same sight. --StatsJunkie 15:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Theory POV

More work needs to be done to make this section NPOV. Discrediting theories with facts (such as what is written about the Navy theory) is obviously fine. But there are some feasible other possibilities. One particularly popular Web site for alternative theories is here [3]. Bayerischermann 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks much improved as of today. ⇒Bayerischermann ^- 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the 'little green men' theory be entertained without the counter evidence to maintain a NPOV?

Any conspiracy theory needs to be presented in light of evidence which disproves it.

Any technical explanation needs to be met with evidence which counters it.

I have seen attempts to explain the loss of TWA 800 (as well as AI 182 and PA 103) as due to a cargo door failure.

Nice try, but the specific damage to the door hinges, latches and surrounding structure in those cases do not match.

No question what failed on UAL 811, and even at altitude the door latch failure only took out the door.

Perhaps it would be best to minimize the space given to the alternate theories? Mark Lincoln 22:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

fuel change

i altered 'Investigators also concluded that the ruptured airframe fuel tanks had caused avgas to drop from the aircraft' to 'Investigators also concluded that the ruptured airframe fuel tanks had caused fuel to drop from the aircraft'. Gas turbine aircraft like the 747 use aviation turbine fuel which is kerosene, avgas is used for piston engine aircraft and is a leaded gasoline similar to regular gasoline for cars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.59.220 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC).

Witness Observations Too Detailed?

Let's not repeat NTSB disinformation to discredit witnesses.

In their final witness report, the NTSB said that the details in some witness accounts seemed too detailed, and were most likely trying to discredit witnesses such as witness #73[4] (name redacted by FBI). But looking more closely, she was one of the closest land-based witnesses of the 670 interviewed. I went back to where she was (not too far from Moriches Inlet on Fire Island) and could clearly ID wide body jets on their way to Europe, out over the ocean.

Witness 73 told investigators the front section broke off the aircraft soon after it exploded. The Navy confirmed her observation by recovering the front section about a mile closer to JFK than the main fuselage and wings.[5] However, she reported seeing an object--that she concluded was a missile--rise up and collide with 800 before the front section fell off. Details that surely conflict with the NTSB's theory, but that are corroborated by wreckage recovery locations, as well as dozens of other witnesses up and down Long Island's coastline.

Tom Stalcup, President Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organzation[6] 69.163.62.160 20:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There are witnesses of all sorts. Technically qualified witnesses are far more valuable than those who are not.

Those interviewed before exposure to news accounts are less likely to report the news. They are also less likely to have had to to ruminate about what they saw.

Witnesses seldom see the initial events.

For the most part non-technically qualified 'witnesses' are not valuable in determining a most probable cause. Mark Lincoln 18:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

--Exposure to news accounts? Forget news accounts, at the time 73 was interviewed, no official knew the front section broke off the plane early in the crash sequence (or at all for that matter). Witness 73 was the first to inform investigators of this. Witnesses seldom see the initial events? True, most didn't, but if you read 73's account, you'll find that she did.

"removed her shoes and walked down to the water line where she enjoyed the ocean for a while." A little later, "her attention was drawn to an aircraft that was flying from her right to her left...[and then] she noticed what appeared to be a 'contrail' which appeared to be coming from an object which was flying toward the plane which she had been watching." She said the object was a "'red streak' moving up from the ground toward the aircraft at an approximately a 45 degree angle."

For more technically qualified witnesses, read the reports. There were two Air National Guard helo pilots in the air at the time (one saw missiles in the air while flying rescue operations in Vietnam, he and his co-pilot saw one explode near or into 800). There was also a Marine Corps Captain, who drew a picture of the missile rising from the surface, arcing over horizontally and (like many other witnesses reported) heading southbound toward and exploding at 800 position. And a Polish Army veteran, experienced with missiles, said he saw a missile bring down 800.

Folks, I've read the current version of the Flight 800 page, and I'm pretty disappointed. It relies too heavily on discredited government information. That image of the plane shooting up (looking like a missile), for example, it a complete farce. The hard radar evidence shows that Flight 800 did not climb at all. But regardless of what the evidence showed, the Feds needed Flight 800 shooting upward to explain the hundreds of witnesses who saw a streak of light *before* the midair explosion. See below for how the radar data refutes the alleged missile-like climb.

If you want to see the problem with the official scenario, read our critique of CNN's "No Survivors" show on Flight 800 here: http://flight800.org/cnnPresentsTWA800Errors.pdf . CNN's show, like the current version of Wikipedia's 800 page, seemed to rely almost solely on discredited government officials and data. Stalcup 18:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to get into the 'witnesses' section without discussion. I will state several points for consideration. Most eyewitness accounts are of limited value in aircraft accident reports. The pilot which reported an explosion at 2031:50 and gave it's altitude as about FL 160, was a technically competent witness. Folks partying down miles away who had their attention drawn by the sound of the explosion were only seeing what happened long after the actual break-up. Even those who saw the initial fire in the center wing tank had their attention attracted by THAT and not the events preceding it. There have been many cases such as AA 587 where ALL the 'eyewitnesses' were useless. Eyewitnesses interviewed after news reports or discussion with friends are often influenced by said reports and discussions. "Eyewitness" reports taken from the web pages of 'conspiracy' sites are often highly edited and manipulated. The longer the time between the event and the interrogation. . .

I guess I have been following airliner accidents for far too long to put a lot of faith in Joe Six Pack's ability as a witness. This is particularly so when the FDR, VCR and wreckage tell a totally different story.Mark Lincoln 16:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

Changed: when the fuel tank exploded To: an explosion occurred Reason: The timing of the fuel tank exploding was not determined. The NTSB speculates that the fuel tank was the initiating event, but there is much evidence to the contrary.

Removed: The wind pushed the aircraft into a climb Reason: There is no evidence that the aircraft climbed. Radar data indicates that it went into an immmediate descent and left bank. The "climb" was postulated by federal investigators to explain witness sightings of a 'rising object' seen before the explosion, but there is no evidence that supports it. In fact, existing evidence refutes it.

Changed: Investigators also concluded that the ruptured airframe fuel tanks had caused fuel to drop from the aircraft. While initially falling clear, it subsequently ignited and burned, from the end of the stream upward, its way back to the aircraft, causing another explosion. This would account for eyewitness testimony suggestive of a missile launch. To: Investigators said that witnesses who reported seeing a missile actually saw Flight 800 climbing sharply and trailing flames after it exploded. The NTSB produced simulations of the proposed climb[7], but radar returns from the doomed flight do not show the necessary ground-speed reduction to match these simulations.[8] Reason: This is not the official explanation of the missile reports. Officials suggested that witnesses who thought they saw a missile were actually watching Flight 800 climb sharply. The wings didn't fail and release their fuel until Flight 800 was descending sharply, several thousand feet below the initiating event. At no time was this stream of fuel 'below' Flight 800. Furthermore, no federal animation (there were at least three--two NTSB and on CIA) shows fuel igniting and catching up with Flight 800, and recall that the CIA animation was produced to show what the witnesses 'actually' saw.[9]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.163.62.160 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC).

It is fair to point out that the FIRO, the organization listed earlier in this talk page, has an advocacy goal pointing to a missile strike:

From their own website:

FIRO has also considered all of the theories for the crash that have emerged over the years and has determined that only one theory can account for all of the available evidence. For a fully-referenced article describing our findings and probable cause determination, visit our probable cause page.

I believe it is safe to say that, similar to the JFK Assassination, there is an official explanation, and other explanations. That page might be an excellent model on which to base the 'cause' section of this article, since there is not a full consensus on the final cause of flight 800's demise. This article will not be the place where such a global consensus occurs, and Wikipedia makes clear that it not to be a soapbox advocating one point of view over another. Overloading one section of this article with evidence will not lead to a global consensus. Please see WP:NOT, specifically the section 'Wikipedia is not a propoganda machine', and its references to advocacy.

Tom, if you wish to edit this article going forward, you may want to consider getting a permanent Wikipedia account. It makes it easier to track changes done by a single person, and makes peer review of an article easier. Skybunny 12:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

"The timing of the fuel tank exploding was not determined."

Twaddle. The destruction of the aircraft clearly started with an explosion in the center wing tank, which resulted in a breech of that tank at the upper front. This caused the span wise beam to rotate downward and forward from the top, hinging at the bottom, and the upward failure of the upper CFT structure. Mark Lincoln 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

SkyBunny, I created a user account. But while our organization has come up with a probable cause of the crash, most of our work is a critique of the government's data and reports. Anyone familiar with our work knows the many problems with the government's scenario.

Take the government's probable cause, for instance. According to the NTSB and Mr. Lincoln, it was the center wing tank explosion. But according to this theory, the force of the explosion blew structures forward first, and the plane ultimately unzipped and broke in two. According to NTSB Sequencing Group Chairman Jim Wildey, no structures left the plane until it unzipped and broke in two, about four seconds after losing electrical power.

How then was wreckage tracked by multiple FAA radar sites radar 1/4 mile perpendicular to its flight path within four seconds of the plane losing power? It's a fair question, but no where in the NTSB's final report is it addressed. I asked former FBI lead investigator Jim Kallstrom about this wreckage, which a radar expert that he contracted first noted. Kallstrom said, "there are some things that we cannot explain."

Now we can just say OK, Kallstrom's right, there are always loose ends in an investigation. But if you find and catalog all of the many loose ends and find that they actually make the official theory untenable, how should Wikipedia record/report this? I have some ideas, as you would expect, but I understand that typical contributors on this issue may not be as versed in the problems with the official theory as some in our organization. So if you could, please give me a phone call to discuss. It's at the bottom of our press release here: http://flight800.org/pr_rel_7_07.htm

Stalcup 19:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Tom, I would strongly encourage taking a step back before making major changes to this article, particularly to take a read of the page 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. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

But while our organization has come up with a probable cause of the crash, most of our work is a critique of the government's data and reports.

I might suggest looking for ways for FIRO's evidence, and those of other sources, to coexist, since some evidence contradicts. This leads into something you asked just above:

But if you find and catalog all of the many loose ends and find that they actually make the official theory untenable, how should Wikipedia record/report this?

I believe the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View article probably answers this better than I might: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). Frankly, whether any given theory is tenable is not my call to make in the context of this article, and the last thing I intend to do is draw conclusions in the article about what is right based on my personal beliefs. Unless the world changes to widely accept that a certain piece of evidence is true, there is either a minority opinion or a contradictory body of evidence. Reportable facts can be referenced by appropriate reliable sources.

I applaud your disclosure of your identity as the chairman of FIRO; but that said, you may also want to look at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Suggesting rewrites against an article that was not under significant editor dispute before your arrival - particularly when said rewrites will naturally lead a reader closer to FIRO's conclusions about the events - is almost certain to bring these sorts of concerns to the fore. Again, coexistence of studies is probably a key. If witness reports as written are a good summary of the NTSB's findings, I suggest that they should not be removed. It is valuable writing if for no other reason that it is the only official study done by the government organization tasked to investigate airline crashes.

This is not the first time I have edited in an article with long standing controversy. You might like to take a look at the article John F. Kennedy assassination. It addresses studies and provides the evidence used to reach their respective conclusions, and, if a study has enough material, provides brief responses to said studies. Facts not in question are reported in the main body of the article outside of these sections. The article does not make an attempt to decide which one is right for the reader, nor put volumes of evidence forward to make an attempt to make said conclusion obvious. It does put the official study first, which I would recommend here, and is how the article is currently written. Flooding any one section with evidence against (for example, in your case, I've no doubt you have several pages to write about your conclusions about the NTSB study) is only going to make the article huge and difficult for a reader to sort through.

Apologies for the length. I haven't been editing this article extensively recently. All I can suggest is caution against using "truth" as a banner under which to make changes toward a particular conclusion. It will be likely to antagonize editors and put them on the defensive, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox at which the goal is to convince editors that any particular theory is the correct one. For a well written and balanced article, this is an exercise for the reader.

Regards Skybunny 01:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice SkyBunny. I read all of the links you suggested and will take a step back. I only feel that Wikipedia readers should be given an accurate account of the incident first and foremost. Readers should be able to quickly and easily determine what actually happened, based on the evidence at hand, not simply an unchecked summary of the government's theory.

Readers should learn what the witnesses actually saw, not learn how the government massaged their accounts into a theory that Flight 800 climbed sharply "like a missile"[quote from CIA animation released at the FBI's final press conference on 11/18/96].

Government reports are not always accurate and are sometimes unduly influenced by political pressure. I don't claim to know why critical NTSB reports are so far off, but they are, and there are bodies of evidence available proving it. This evidence speaks for itself, and we should let it.

As it stands now, the article is mostly a summary of the official NTSB report. I think it could use some fact-checking on the veracity of government statements and conclusions. Perhaps a section titled 'Problems with NTSB conclusions' could be added as well.

The three main problems (verifiable back to government documents and data) are:

1) The NTSB concluded that Flight 800 climbed sharply after exploding. But based upon the radar evidence, Flight 800 didn't climb as depicted in government animations. This climb was used to explain witness accounts of a rising streak of light. Without the climb, the government could not explain a majority of the rising streak accounts. I believe there is a link below to the NTSB's "Main wreckage trajectory study" simulation data (used in animations) falling behind 800's true radar-tracked course by 1/4 during the alleged climb.

2) The NTSB concluded that the rising streak of light reported by eyewitnesses was Flight 800 maneuvering in crippled flight. But in three separate witness reports (two government and one independent), over 90% of the eyewitnesses who provided information regarding the origin of the rising streak of light said that it originated on the surface or horizon. Flight 800 was 2.6 miles above the surface when it lost electrical power. (Two links are already cited in the article, but another is needed, linking to the original NTSB Witness Study).

3) The NTSB concluded that the initial explosion was internal, and that wreckage only began exiting the airframe four seconds after the initial explosion, when the forward fuselage separated from the rest of the plane. But multiple FAA radar sites tracked wreckage exiting the aircraft at apparent supersonic speeds at the very moment Flight 800 lost electrical power (and four seconds before the forward fuselage separated). This wreckage was tracked moving on a southerly course, consistent with the direction of a streak of light that eyewitnesses said exploded at Flight 800's position. (NTSB and FBI radar maps are available that show this wreckage, as well as an FBI radar consultant's report who raised questions about why this wreckage wasn't listed in the NTSB's debris field database).

The above three points are not meant to be text for the article, but just points to consider here on the talk page. It could and should be brought down to a neutral tone and condensed.

Tom Stalcup 05:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

the real cause

The real cause is overheating fuel caused by an overheated air-conditioning duct (the temperatures outside were 28 degreese centigrade, the air-conditioning were turned on high to keep the passangers cool) under the center tank. A wire that runs into the fuel tank (The wire that brings information to the cockpit) that short-circuted (the wire is to transmit information in low watt but a nearby high watt wire short-circuted it) causes a spark that ignites it. It is true, i've herd of a materials that was inside a homemade bomb is untrue. The plane was used as a trainer to train dogs detecting explosives using real materials. Irfanfaiz 09:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Irfanfaiz, I'm personally aware of the bomb sniffing exercise, and it is hinted at in the 'terrorist bomb' section. If you have a specific reference where the FBI makes its statements regarding the bomb material, it would be an excellent addition to the article. You may wish to avoid language like 'the real cause' and stick instead to 'The official explanation is...' or 'One alternate theory is...' Skybunny 12:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The bomb sniffing exercise would easily explain the discovery of RDX/PETN found on the victims' bodies as well as in the fuselage, however, Donaldson, one of the references, concluded that this particular aircraft was not used in the exercises. I wish somebody would have researched the discrepancy. --StatsJunkie 15:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The real cause is ENTROPY of fuel [10] 83.5.142.87 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

A plea for NPOV writing and avoiding alternate theory evidence flooding

Greetings, all. I'm writing this in the hope that some of the difficulties come across in other controversial articles might be avoided in this one. I've made several prospective edits to this article, to have many of them almost immediately reversed.

TWA Flight 800 is a controversial article. There is the NTSB's official explanation, and at least 2-3 major alternative theories. Although I suppose this is just one person's opinion, I believe there are several things which could help this article grow and prosper, as it were...

1. If you are making major additions to this article (I'm speaking especially to 152.163.100.201, Mr. Tom Stalcup, if you're still editing this article, and others), please register with Wikipedia, get a user account, and log in while making changes to this article. It makes much clearer who is making changes, and makes the flow of editing more understandable. User accounts tend to be more 'respected' than anonymous edits; plus, they allow things like real correspondence in the talk pages here, and on a person's user page. If your IP changes, your username won't, so edits won't be confused as coming from someone completely new.

2. Please sign comments and replies to comments on talk pages with four tildes '~'. This makes clear who's talking in a given comment.

3. Some time ago, the article JFK Assassination, which I have contributed significantly to over the years, had an issue where alternate theories became bloated beyond belief because contributors were putting bit after bit after bit of evidence in a given section, as though to convince the reader through massive amounts of information that a given theory was (the most) plausible.

I'd like to point out the article Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the section 'Propaganda or advocacy of any kind.' It states, "Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." Mr. Tom Stalcup's website, FIRO, says this about its research into flight 800[11]: 'FIRO has also considered all of the theories for the crash that have emerged over the years and has determined that only one theory can account for all of the available evidence. For a fully-referenced article describing our findings and probable cause determination, visit our probable cause page.' While I would not inherently discount the research presented there, I would conclude from this statement that the website's purpose is not pure research, but advocacy, and urge use of this, and other similar websites, be considered carefully based on Wikipedia's charter.

I believe that if a given section gets too long and filled with facts that don't seem to fit together, a reader will become lost in the section and its value will be lost. An alternate theory does not need to waste its time discounting the official theory to make its case. I do believe that it need only explain its case, and use key portions of evidence, rather than all portions. The two or three most powerful and reference-able pieces of evidence in a theory will matter a lot more than 75 eyewitness opinions and everything anyone in a position of power ever said about the theory. A person can go to a website or other resource (listed at the bottom of this article) if they want to see all pieces of evidence available. This is an encyclopeadic article. That said, I believe that an alternative theory should be able to stand on its own. If it need discount one or two pieces of the official explanation to do this, that can be stated in that theory's section. If it requires 5,000 words to discount piece after piece of NTSB evidence, I think it can be argued that it doesn't stand as strongly.

That being said, what evidence is quoted, both in the official and alternative explanations, should have first generation accepted references, like an NTSB report, or a major news organization's laboratory analysis. The entire 'Missile strike (unknown/terrorist origin)' has references which all point to one single person's website: http://hometown.aol.com/missiletwa800/index.htm. The main article on the website about TWA 800 says this: 'This document presents the author's opinion as to the explanation for the evidence uncovered to date.' I would not consider this a first generation accepted reference. The author himself admits that it is conjecture. I'd like a second opinion, but I think that tends to render most of that entire section as conjecture by proxy.

Before I start trying to make edits to approach a Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View - a balanced view of different theories, giving them 'fair shakes', I'm hoping for some degree of assurance that evidence flooding and use of second, third, and fourth generation research will not render such efforts moot. Were it me, I'd be making the alternate theory sections shorter, and removing evidence from sites with a clear advocacy goal unless its validity can be assessed objectively. I believe the alternate theories can be stated concisely without being proven, which I do not believe is not the purpose of Wikipedia anyway.

Looking forward to insights and replies...Skybunny 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As no-one has commented here or raised an objection in the last several days, I have attempted a major reorganization of the alternate theories section. It is based up on a few major ideals:

1. Each of the theories, official and otherwise, now occupy approximately equal space in this article. I have removed unreferenced assertions, added references where I could find them (such as from CNN), and tried to reduce the amount of cruft that does not concisely explain alternate theories. Yes, I have deleted material, but I believe these deletions do not detriment from the article. I believe one or two key pieces of the theories are good starts to understand the theory, and that someone can go to the linked The Donaldson Report, as an example, if they want laborious detail into each piece of evidence the report mentions. See JFK assassination, and, for instance, the Warren Commission's place in that.

2. I have tried to diversify references where possible.

3. I have tried to explain alternate theories as a product of the amount of time it took the official report to be released.

Skybunny 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that too much space is spent on the alternative theories.

I realize that I have been reading accident reports for 50 years, have a great deal of understanding of the nature of accident investigation and what different types of damage are caused by bombs, structural failure, fuel explosions, etc.

Thus I am probably better equipped than most to understand the accident report.

Just because someone comes up with a 'theory' of what happens does not necessarily warrant an extensive discussion on the TWA 800 page.

Perhaps the best thing would be to create a "TWA 800 Conspiracy Theory" page and link it to a brief discussion of the variety of theories proposed. Mark Lincoln 22:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that certain theories shouldn't be given any bandwidth. I heard of one that blames the crash on a big methane bubble from the bottom of the ocean.

However, the problems with the government's theory are well documented, and should be highlighted on any page discussing this crash. And there are only two main theories: the government's fuel-tank theory and the missile theory. These two should be discussed and compared on the Flight 800 page, with weight given to the theory that best accounts for a majority of the evidence.

Stalcup 19:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconds From Disaster documentary

I have reverted a change made by 134.225.239.114 concerning the content of the National Geographic Seconds From Disaster documentary about TWA Flight 800. I have a copy of the recording, and specifically reviewed its conclusion to determine the wording used. It leans heavily toward the official explanation, but the word 'probable' is taken directly from the program. Usually the program opens its 45th or so minute by saying:

"Now, using computer simulation, we are able to piece together the chain of events that lead to disaster X".

The TWA 800 program (which I admit I don't have in front of me, but...) said:

"Now, using computer simulation, we are able to piece together the probable chain of events that led to the TWA 800 disaster."

I think the word 'probable' is important, and is a statement about the conclusions the program reached. Unless someone has a different working definition, 'probable' in my mind means 'likely, but not certain'. Skybunny 15:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Probable" is standard procedure. If you can find a single scientific paper (outside the realm of mathematical proofs) that uses the word "definitely", congratulations - you've found pseudo-science. --70.108.85.21 00:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article

This article is of serious concern. It states that an "electrical failure in the center fuel tank" was the source of ignition for the TWA 800 disaster. But the 305 word abstract from the NTSB clearly contradicts this statement saying that "The source of ignition...was [most likely] a short circuit outside of the CWT." The article then dedicates to the NTSB investigation a measly 400 words (about a third of what it dedicates to alternative theories about the crash). In essence, the coverage this article offers of the NTSB investigation is woefully inadequate and at times inaccurate. Until this is fixed it needs attention. Cedars 15:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, as one of the few non-anonymous editors working on this article (significantly) in the last month. I welcome any help people can offer, and offer the defense that I was focusing a lot more on the alternative theories section to try to NPOV it. I was actually trying to figure out a way to get more WP editors here by saying something along lines of 'Help me, please', but maybe the 'This article needs attention' flag will do that. I'd also like an opinion on whether the alternate theories section is NPOV enough to remove that flag, now -- or edits to get it there.Skybunny 16:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read the alternative theories section at first, but it is well-written, and does seem to give a balanced viewpoint on the theories. I may make a few minor tweaks to it as time goes on. Otherwise hopefully we can work together to improve information on the NTSB report and maybe integrate the trivia section. Thanks for your support and work Skybunny. Cedars 00:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Remove content regarding alternative theories, placing this content on a secondary page. Provide a short summary of the alternative theories, and provide a link in the section to the secondary page. See 7_World_Trade_Center#Alternate_theories_regarding_the_collapse for an example. --Durin 18:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If either the missile strike or bomb sections got any longer, I think this would pretty much be where we'd want to go. (I'm thinking here, for instance, of the 'Kennedy assasination theories' article). I suppose we could call that inevitable, because there will be more evidence flooding as the two sections are filled in again with the reasons their theories are correct and the official explanation is wrong. I'm content to let all three explanations sit with even ground and provide the source material, but acknowledge that granting enough time, that's not likely to happen. If you want to try reorganizing this article in that way, it might not hurt to see what we get. The larger conspiracy oriented articles do seem to ultimately resort to an 'other theories' article, with a brief and concise paragraph in the main article. Skybunny 19:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not depend upon the Summary. Read the report. Conclusion 16 reads "A short circuit producing excess voltage that was transferred to the center wing tank (CWT) fuel quantity indication system wiring is the most likely source of ignition energy for the TWA flight 800 CWT explosion."

I think that for the average reader the article conveys the concept better. The summery refers to a short outside the tank, but the conclusion makes it clear that said short conveyed energy into the tank. The fuel quantity sensors are designed to work at a low voltage and thus not present a threat of being an ignition source. A higher voltage being applied to said circuitry could easily cause a secondary short or arcing in the center fuel tank. The NTSB was trying to be precise, while the article needs to speak to non-technically minded people the essentials of the NTSB report. Mark Lincoln 18:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very wary of presenting a short circuit in the FQIS as the "conclusion" of the NTSB as the cause of the CWT explosion. The probable cause as stated by the NTSB is a CWT explosion, but they quite clearly state "The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty". The finding (not conclusion) that "A short circuit producing excess voltage that was transferred to the center wing tank (CWT) fuel quantity indication system wiring is the most likely source of ignition energy for the TWA flight 800 CWT explosion." should be viewed as a relative statement; i.e. many possible sources of ignition were examined, and all but one were determined to be "very unlikely". Therefore, by default, a short in the FQIS was considered to be the most likely compared to the others. "Most likely" doesn't mean "probable" or even "likely", just less improbable than the others. I think there is a big difference in meaning between:

"...is the most likely source of ignition energy" (as written)

"...is most likely the source of ignition energy" (which they did not write, which would have implied a high probablility).

Boeing's fault tree analysis concluded the probablility of a FQIS wiring fault producing an ignition source in the CWT as being 1 x 10^-6 events per hour. While the Marshall Space Flight Center savaged that analysis, concluding that "realistic" numbers used in a fault tree analysis would indicate a much higher probability of ignition, they did not quantify that statement. Say the possibility is in fact 1 x 10^-5 events per hour; at that failure rate the possibility of a catastrophic short circuit during 12 minutes of TWA 800's flight was a 1 in 500,0000 chance (someone check my math). Most strikingly, no clear evidence of a short was ever produced. The NTSB dismisses other ignition sources such a explosive devices by saying none of the characteristic damage patterns or other evidence was observed, however no FQIS wiring exhibiting arcing damage, frayed insulation, etc., was ever produced. I don't think this is "proof" that a short didn't happen, and I think the report is quite honest about this, but I do think it is important not describe a short circuit event as being definitive. The NTSB's carefully chosen words seem to be doing the same thing. Lipsticked Pig 20:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

From PNA/Aerospace

• TWA Flight 800 - poor and, at the time of submission, inaccurate coverage of the NTSB report. Cedars 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We are working on it. NTSB reports are not intended for consumption by the average person. The Wikipedia is. I may understand that tension and shear failures of fuselage skin implies one type of event, and star fractures radiating from very small fragments to larger ones further from the center point another.

The implications of all initial bending and tearing occurring from the center of the Center Wing Tank outward, and that ALL subsequent structural failures directly progressed from that point is excruciatingly explained in the Accident Report.

The problem is that it is explained in such detail it would be hard for most folks to comprehend it. Too much information. Mark Lincoln 22:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cause

listin the theory is proven false. no terrist attacked the plane. No no no. Okay. hey common in 1996 the world was safe, with an exception of kosovo and Iraq. Who thought of the theory needs to rethink. Thank u. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.5.152.143 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC).

It doesn't matter whether the theory has been proven false. Enough people believe it so that thee should be a description in the article. Academic Challenger 08:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh. Wow. This is one of the most incoherant messages I've ever seen on the internet, and I've spent time on USENET. "Academic Challenger"? If I was an English teacher, I'd agree. Or a history teacher, for that matter. (disclaimer: I side with the official report, and in general I disdain conspiracy theories - so I'm not just saying this based on differing idealogies) --70.108.85.21 00:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not make most of that comment, for the record, only the last sentence. Academic Challenger 08:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Some folks have a real problem that sometimes crap happens.

A friend of the family, his father once flew with mine, and I knew his kids, was once captain of a Viscount, cruising peacefully southward, when two whistling swans headed the other direction were killed by striking his horizontal stabilizers. He and everyone else on the plane was killed as well. Hard to accept if you believe that someone has to be guilty of every misfortune.

I agree that the idea that any article concerned with TWA 800 has to include reference to the conspiracy theories. The question I pose is this. Is it really a NPOV to give equal treatment to speculation as it is to hard fact?

Or is it just a cop out? Mark Lincoln 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point, hard facts should rule the day. Therefore, any reference giving credibility to Flight 800 climbing should be stricken from Wikipedia's 800 page.

Stalcup 19:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Microseconds???

The article says that "Two unusual pauses in the cockpit voice recorder's tape, each about two microseconds long...". Microseconds sounds way too short. What type of sound recorder samples at millions of samples per second, such that a microsecond gap could be noticed? 44 kHz (44 thousand samples per second) is plenty for CD audio and even extreme audiophiles won't do more than double or triple that.--Prosfilaes 18:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there - there is no such thing as a pause of two microseconds - as all audible sound waves are already separated by "gaps" of much larger periods of time. It is clearly a mistake. It is like saying there is a pothole in the road that's the size of a grain of sand. The size of the supposed pothole in comparison to the normal texture of the average road makes the statement absurd. Reswobslc 18:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd wager that someone confused thousandths of a second with milliseconds with microseconds with nanoseconds. Perhaps a hat made of tinfoil would clear everything up for us. --70.108.140.252 20:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The CNN story

Greetings all. I have become something of an air travel buff over the years, and felt I had to weigh in.

I'm very disappointed that more space hasn't been devoted in this article to CNN's special on this tragedy. The most extensive report any mainstream news organization has done on Flight 800, and it only merits two sentences? Disgraceful. The article also fails to mention the nitrogen inertion system that could have very well prevented this crash. I'm gonna try and tweak this article to include more info on these ... and as a journalist by training, I think I can do this in an NPOV manner. Blueboy96 07:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely... Go for it. Grandmasterka 07:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Before swallowing the CNN story, which is basically COVERAGE of the official crash scenario, not REPORTING on it, please read http://flight800.org/cnnPresentsTWA800Errors.pdf , which lists the significant factual errors in that piece. Reporting requires fact-checking, which CNN did not apparently do.

Stalcup 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The CNN storytelling

CNN might be mistaken in its account given, see: http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/2227/48/

(emphasis added)

CNN Presents TWA Flight 800 Misinformation The recent CNN Presents show 'No Survivors' presented controversial government information on the crash of TWA Flight 800 with inadequate fact checking. The piece showed an animation of Flight 800 climbing sharply after exploding, in direct conflict with radar data from the crash. Multiple radar sites refute the climb and indicate that the jetliner immediately descended after exploding. Such a climb was first used in a CIA-produced animation to explain witnesses accounts describing a missile rising off the ocean and colliding with Flight 800. The climbing aircraft "may have looked like a missile attacking an aircraft," according to the CIA. In 1999, Flight 800 Independent Researchers Organization released their analysis of the radar evidence. "We simply took the government's own radar and time positions of Flight 800 and calculated the plane's speed," said FIRO Chairman Tom Stalcup. "The speed increased, which can't happen while climbing sharply." According to the law of conservation of energy, Flight 800 had to reduce its speed if it climbed sharply. And all government simulations show such a slow-down, directly conflicting with the radar record. CNN's animation, which also shows a significant post-explosion climb, contradicts the evidence and is bad journalism. The government's scenario requires Flight 800 climbing sharply in order to explain witness accounts of a rising streak of light seen before the crash. But since Flight 800 did not climb, as evidenced by the radar record, the missile theory is the only remaining theory that is viable. The CNN show did discuss the missile theory, but said there was no physical evidence of missile impact. This was misleading and inaccurate. In fact, CNN only discussed damage consistent with a small, shoulder-fired missile. But two days after the crash, CNN quoted a top Pentagon official saying that these missiles couldn't reach Flight 800. See: http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/19/twa/index.html Since smaller missiles couldn't likely reach Flight 800, the CNN Presents producers should not have been surprised there was no evidence of their impact. But in actuality, there was both physical and radar evidence consistent with a proximity explosion of a much larger missile. This evidence was not addressed in the 'No Survivors' show. Contact: Tom Stalcup, FIRO Chairman, 774-392-0856

It seems strange to me that government would hold on to a wrong picture (climbing and slowing) when that can and has been demonstrated so easily to be wrong ... unless they would want a wrong perception for some reason. — Xiutwel (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC) (On holidays till mid August)

And isn't David Icke the one who believes Jew lizardmen invented the Holocaust? Hey, this dude on the street corner had a pretty convincing sign that proved that CNN was on the grassy knoll in 1963, and that they revisited the scene six years later to shoot the moon landing with the spaceship built of parts scavenged from flight 800 and the missle that hit the Pentagon, and that this is why his wife and children aren't allowed to see him anymore and he'll pee in my hand for a dollar. Maybe we should cover this intelligently designed theory as well! --70.108.140.252 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, lets try not to shoot the messenger here. I didn't post the above, nor do I know how Mr. Icke got a copy of what I wrote, nor have I even heard of the guy until he grabbed this article and reposted it. What I can tell you though, is that everything in the article is accurate. To convince yourself that Flight 800 didn't climb, for example, see: http://flight800.org/petition/pet_sect5.htm

or better yet, read the government report and see how the NTSB's simulated Flight path falls behind Flight 800's FAA radar-tracked course by 1/4 mile only 8 seconds into the fanciful climb.

Please review the NTSB's "Main Wreckage Flight Path Study" here:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/twa800/exhibits/Ex_22C.pdf

and look at figures 19 and 30. These are the two plots that compare the Islip and White Plains radar data with Flight 800 climbing. Note that the simulated climb (the red line) diverges from the radar data (and therefore reality) almost immediately. By the third radar point (about 8 seconds into the climb), the simulated aircraft is about 1/4 mile behind where Flight 800 actually was.

This is because a sharply climbing aircraft reduces its speed significantly, and thus cannot keep up with an aircraft (like Flight 800) that was not climbing. And note that the two simulations shown in these two figures are the best they could do in this report. Any of your science or math correspondents should be able to verify the above.

This is a complex case, and reading a Wikipedia talk page isn't the best place to convince yourself of what happened, one way or another. But if you're really interested, look at the government's story and compare it with what the radar and eyewitness evidence actually shows. This is evidence burned into magnetic tapes and people's memories. Regarding the physical evidence, that's a different story altogether. Stalcup 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Three Windows?

If, as said in the article, this type of plane (747-131) had three windows on the upper deck, why does the photo show a plane with nine upper deck windows?

El M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.83.74.105 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC).

'Bomb Dog' excercise dispute.

I would like to see more written about the chemicals found aboard TWA 800 and about how they got there; 'this residue was explained as the product of a bomb detection exercise performed in the plane a few weeks before the crash.'

Peter Lance has interviewed the officer that performed this exercise, who states at length that he did not spill/allow powder to escape from any of the explosive chemical test items none of which included nitroglycerin which was also found. (and the fact that the items where placed in locations that are very inconsistent with where the RDX residues where found.)

There is also a major factor to do with whether the plane that later became TWA 800 was in fact the plane that the tests where conducted on. (there where 2 identical aircraft available at the time sitting opposite each other, the officer states that it could have been either)

Inconsistencies between the FBI's report and the officers statements of times and locations are also an issue.

I am not one for promoting books I got in Wal-Mart for $3.97 but Peters book really does have a ton of information about the Ramzi Yousef/Greg Scarpa/Khalid Sheik Mohammed connection to TWA 800 that I think this article may benefit from discussing.

'A preventable crash?' - This could also benefit from a mention about where the plane came from prior to arriving in NY; Athens, where airport security was rumored to be lax. -kali1900 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kali1900 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC).

We also have the gate logs for the plane that would become 800. It was being boarded by 400 passengers bound for Honolulu before officer Burnette even started his dog-training exercise. Burnette stated unequivocally that the jetliner he performed the exercise on was empty. I interviewed former FBI Assistant Directer Jim Kallstrom (who headed the government's investigation into 800) and asked him about this directly. He admitted to hearing about problems with the dog sniffing story early on (I have him on tape saying this). But nonetheless, he went on national TV with this highly questionable story anyway.

As for the major news networks, they gave him the pulpit with zero fact-checking. And that was it. Case closed. The high explosives were explained with misinformation, and the investigation continued. Front page of the New York Times or not, the explosives findings were cast aside.

Stalcup 19:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Scarpa and Agent DeVecchio clarity

Lance claims that this link was never made because it relied heavily on prison informant Greg Scarpa Jr., the son of a leader of the Colombo crime family, whose credibility was undermined by people in the FBI seeking to protect many convictions of mobsters which could be overturned if Scarpa was a credible witness in a possible internal investigation into whether Special Agent Lindley DeVecchio had been leaking FBI information that allowed Scarpa's father to conduct a bloody mob war.

That sentance is far to long and confusing. Could these factors be explained more clearly, and with sentances of reasonable length.? gleep 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Climb After Nose Separation

I have a BS in Aeronautical Science, flew the F4D Phantom in the USAF and have all FAA civilian pilot ratings - commercial, instrument and multi-engine; certified flight and ground instructor. So I am somewhat qualified to make this comment about the behavior of an airplane when the nose section separates from the rest of the airframe.

This fact has been mentioned on other Flight 800 websites, so I don't take credit for origination. The statement made in this Wikipedia article says basically that Flight 800 flew for 30 some seconds and climbed another 3,000 feet after the nose section separated from the aircraft. The article also says that this piece of information is generally accepted as true.

The fact is, when that much weight is instantaneously removed from the forward part of an airplane (this 747), the center of gravity moves aft instantaneously as well, far behind the center of lift. Under these conditions, and airplane cannot fly nor can it climb. It will, without exception, rotate its tail rapidly downward causing a high angle of attack stall. The wings that were supporting the aircraft no longer generate lift and the aircraft will descend almost immediately in a tumbling, perhaps tail-first attitude. You might visualize this when a child quickly leaps from one end of teeter-totter allowing the other child to fall quickly to the ground. The pivot point in this example corresponds to the wings and the child leaping off would be the nose of the airplane leaving the airframe.

Any analysis that concludes that the nose came off and that the aircraft ascended in any kind of "flight" mode is patently flawed. This behavior can be reproduced easily with model aircraft. DHochLV 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly the day after the "Zoom Climb" theory was made public Boeing issued a statement that it didn't support it. Later an engineer applied for the FBI data that supported the climb under FOI and they claimed they had lost it all. The court ruled that the FBI acted in good faith and had no obligation to find the missing data. It should also be remembered that the NTSB was not allowed to interview any of the witnesses. The FBI did that and not only refused NTSB access but kept no records of what was said. The witness statements were given to the NTSB as 302 forms which are an agents written recollection of what was said. No wonder there are conspiracy theories around. Either one of them is true or the FBI and NTSB are totally incompetent. Wayne 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

DHoch, I think you are misunderstanding the weight distribution on the B-747. Especially in the -100 and SP aircraft the engine mass constitutes much of the weight forward of the Cg. Thus the loss of the nose would not constitute a total loss of weight forward of the Cg and would produce a smaller pitching moment. In the case of Lobkerbie and TWA 800 the wing and aft fuselage continued well past the point where the nose separated. In the case of TWA 800 the disintegration as rapid as in PA 103. The structural failures of TWA 800 were more progressive. The nose was found in an area overlapping and at the extreme down course region of the wreckage resulting from the initial breakup. The next major part to become detached was the left wing which was found further down range from the nose. The right wing failed progressively and the aft fuselage landed last.

As the open-ended aft fuselage and attached wing structures clearly would have a higher drag coefficient than the nose, unless there were additional height or lift they should have landed near by or even before the nose. In the Lockerbie case aircraft clearly flew for a moment after nose separation. The horizontal stabilizers failed in both cases, yet this did not produce a sufficient change in center of lift to significantly change things.

In the Lockerbie case, the entire wing separated from the aft fuselage, while TWA 800 had the left wing fail first, followed by the right. This was a much more progressive destruction.

The wreckage distribution clearly indicates that the aircraft did continue for a short while in flight. With the upward pitch induced by the loss of the nose, and with depending upon the order of wing separation the wreckage pattern of both aircraft was similar, but more protracted in the case of TWA 800.

It should be noted that the accident report for Air India 182 (http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/prg/ns/airs/_fl/Kirpalai-en.pdf) shows a similar pattern. The aft fuselage ended up further down the flight path than the cockpit section. In the case of Air India 182, the wing failed catastrophically into many pieces and was (unlike either Pan Am 103 and TWA 800) close to the nose.

I must draw the conclusion by comparing wreckage distribution between three B-747 aircraft which were 'decapitated" by explosions that the size of the explosion affected how rapidly the aircraft came apart, that the slower the aircraft came apart, the further the wings and aft fuselage impacted from the nose (altitude of aircraft considered) and that in the case of TWA 800 it is probable that the pitch up resulted in considerable lift and thus a brief steep climb. I side with the NSTB on this one. Mark Lincoln 17:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the zoom climb was possible or not. FAA radar sites tracked what Flight 800 actually did, and it didn't climb. If it had climbed sharply, there would have been a simultaneous drop in airspeed. Multiple FAA radar sites recorded no such drop.

Stalcup 19:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Investigation Timeline

Hello , what I am trying to research on this subject is the timeline of all events. From the time the flight was blown up mid air the the conclusion of the FBI , FAA, NTSB Ect.... investigations. How long did they spend doing the total investigation? I think a timeline would be a good thing to include in this historic article. Anyone know of the exact timeline? Thanks, -Mo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moh2o (talk • contribs) 06:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

Timeline see [12] 83.5.142.87 19:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's work on this article!

Hi everyone. I see from the talk pages that many of your have strong opinions of what happened to TWA 800. Me too! Accordingly, many of us disagree strongly. But that is no reason why we can't collectively work to improve the quality of this article. Many, even more controversial, subjects have been collaborated on by editors in Wikipedia and truly great encyclopedic articles have resulted. We can too! BUT, it will involve alot of compromises by all of us, and most importantly, civility by everyone (it's not just a good idea, it's policy: WP:CIV). So I promise not to call anyone a crackpot; please don't call me a sucker.

One thing I hope we can all agree on: this article is a mess. With regard to structure, well, it has none. Every Wikipedia article should be adequately referenced; for a controversial topic such as this, sourcing is especially important. Time and time again there are statements of fact that many would disagree with; each and every one of these need to have a citation. Factually there are many inaccuracies; even if you disagree with the NTSB final report, I'm sure you agree that we should at least summarize it accurately.

A well-referenced, well-organized article improves the presentation of all points of view; everybody wins. Please remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOT#SOAP). If you approach this as trying to win an argument, you will not win.

So to start, I'd like to propose a new opening (see WP:LEAD). Specific problems I have with the first paragraphs are:

• Disorganization. Here are the subjects of the first 8 "paragraphs": accident, victims (most do not merit inclusion as "notable), analysis, accident, analysis, analysis, trivia, trivia
• Lack of citations.
• Accuracy. A statement like "The NTSB concluded that the spark was created by faulty wire insulation and an electrical arc." is not the same as saying "The source of ignition energy for the explosion could not be determined with certainty..."

I'd like the lead to set up the following body of the article, to be a foundation upon which we build the rest. It should briefly and concisely sum up the (verifiable) facts of the event (and I'm purposefully using the term "event" instead of "accident"), and summarize the content that is to follow. So I'm putting up here for comment a proposed text. I'd like to hear what you like or don't like about it. The 1st citation (the NTSB Executive Summary) fully supports all the text in the 1st and 3rd paragraphs, the other citations I just quickly grabbed; there are probably better ones out there but as you can see they adequately support the given text. This opening parallels how I think the structure of the main body of the article should go:

• Accident flight
• Investigation
• (Official) Conclusions
• Alternative theories

Please note that that any given alternative theory will not have as much space as the official report. But remember that when the content of the final report is presented comprehensively, it lays an important foundation down for later criticism. Also, once a section like "Problems with the zoom climb theory" reaches a certain length, it should have its own article, and a summary and link be placed in main one. Please look at John F. Kennedy assassination for example of how these controversial subjects have been handled (fairly well) in the past. Please assume good faith with me (WP:AGF). I truly want anyone who comes to this article to get as much information as possible, and most importantly leave armed with enough knowledge (and links) to further learn about it and make up their own mind. Lipsticked Pig 07:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit of a mess. Such is the results of amorphous collaboration. I would suggest that the structure of the Accident Report be viewed as an example of organization.

There is a statement of fact. A section on analysis. Then conclusions. I recognize that the NTSB had a different purpose (no, not covering up the fact that little green men run our government and destroyed TWA 800 to eliminate the one 19 year old student that had that fact revealed to him in a dream) than a Wikipedia article.

Perhaps I do not understand the need. It seems to me that a Wikipedia article on a controversial airline accident needs to establish; first the essential facts, second, the substance and extent of the investigation, third, the results of the investigation, fourth the fact that there were numerous and various other theories put forth to explain the accident.

The NTSB had to ask the questions, what do we know beyond dispute, how do we know what really happened, what does it all mean, what was the probable cause, and what can be done to prevent it happening again.

We need to do about the same thing, except we don't need to provide any suggestions as to how to prevent another event. What we need to do is then put forth the other basic theories proposed as well as the social and political context.

We cannot ignore the fact that there were social and political consequences.

The morning this was in the papers, my family and parents were sitting in a restaurant about to go on vacation. Dad and I conversed about the accident and we both thought from initial reports it was probably a bomb.

The social consequences for two flyers was that we turned out to be wrong in our initial speculation.

Perhaps this article needs a top down review? Mark Lincoln 22:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

New lead and 1st section

OK, I put the new lead in; please see WP:LEAD as to what I was trying to do and why the previous opening had to go.

The 1st section after that is History of flight. What this section is supposed to do is put the airplane up in the sky, and back down in the water again, without any analysis. It is the "official" version of events. For those of you who don't like that version, remember that it is important to lock that version in so that when specifics are criticized later, people will know what you are talking about. This section has two citations, the final report and an ATC transcript. If you look at the content you can see I have taken it ALL (and most of it verbatim) from just the first 3 pages of the final report and the brief ATC transcript; it is very easy to fact-check. I tried to mention things that are potentially important, such as the flight originating from Athens, the air conditioning running, etc. I know some of you believe in contrary radar evidence; that is why I noted for the record what the NTSB considered the last radar return. The ATC transcript provides a way for some eyewitness accounts without getting into the morass of the FBI investigation and their interviews (more on that in a sec). The simple description following that of what people on the land and sea saw/heard I hope satisfies most people on all sides.

OK, so the next section Investigation is where the NTSB analysis of the data comes in; if you believe strongly that certain aspects of the NTSB investigation flawed, this is the time to voice your opinion. Make sure that elements of the investigation that will be criticized LATER are mentioned here. Remember, it is still the official version...sourcing will primarily be coming from the final report and appendixes. But don't think that you can't lay the groundwork for criticism later using these sources. Here is my example, Witnesses

The Witnesses subsection, which is waiting for YOU to edit, should cover in 2 or 3 paragraphs the data collected by the NTSB from all witnesses to the explosion and aftermath. An unusual aspect to the TWA 800 investigation is that the NTSB did not directly interview any witnesses, but instead the FBI, who at the time was leading the investigation, had their agents conduct interviews. The witness documents provided to the NTSB from the FBI were "summaries of information" collected by FBI agents during interviews with potential witnesses. Later, when the NTSB had control over the investigation, they chose not to reinterview the witnesses, partially due to the time elasped since the crash (21 months). FBI redacted personal information of the witnesses from the reports the submitted to the NTSB. The FBI stated that no verbatim records of the witness interviews were produced. The summaries provided to the NTSB were generally written in the words of the agents who conducted the interviews and not necessarily in the words of the witnesses. Witnesses were not asked to review or correct the documents.

OK, after reading all of that I became kind of wary of that chain of custody (and quality) of the evidence. And a summary of this info should proceed the actual witness "statements" themselves, so that readers will know how this information was derived. ALL that info (which doesn't look make the investigation look good) came from pages 229 and 230 of the final report. Lipsticked Pig 06:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The History of flight section is purposefully short so we can add to it later pertinent information that is referenced later in the article as we see fit.

Terminology

I propose that for this article when we talk about TWA 800 in the context of the NTSB investigation, we use the term "accident". When we talk about it in terms of the FBI investigation and alternative theories we use the term "event". This seems right, both for readability and NPOV. Lipsticked Pig 07:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that 'crash' or 'explosion' is a universally acceptable term that can be used in any context. No matter why the plane went down, it is widely accepted that there was a mid-air explosion, and the plane crashed. There are, though, some specific terms in play:

• An FBI investigation of the crash/explosion
• An NTSB accident (this is a specific term used by the NTSB to describe an event involving the catastrophic damage of an airplane by any cause; a mild one is an incident; therefore, the report is an accident report)

Care should probably be taken to make sure that conclusions are not drawn based on terminology. The 9/11 airline crashes still produced an 'accident report' even though they were obviously not accidents. Skybunny 15:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Care should probably be taken to make sure that conclusions are not drawn based on terminology <--I think this is an especially valid point, and perhaps we should include it explicitly in the article. Lipsticked Pig 17:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia" section cleanup

Please see WP:TRIV I changed the headline to read TWA 800 in the media, which alot of these entries fall under, but even so, we should consider if we really want to keep them....there are too many! Here are some explanations of what I deleted:

• "Scientists at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, were assigned to inspect TWA 800's fuel pumps as part of the investigation.". (If this is worth mentioning in the Investigation section when fuel pumps are discussed, it can be placed there. However, MANY other agencies were ultimately involved in this investigation and this fact alone does not merit inclusion)
• This was the first breaking news story when MSNBC began broadcasting. (If you beleive this to be true and feel it warrants inclusion, please provide a reference)
• One passenger, language professor Lois Van Epps, taught actor Joe Mantegna in high school. (Does not qualify as notable...I know that sounds harsh, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site)
• Interior designer and fledgling film-maker Jed Johnson, a former lover and confidant of Andy Warhol, was one of those who perished on board. (Not notable; a good rule of thumb is does that person have there own Wikipedia page? The sister or neice of a Wikipedia entry does not count as notable, however)
• Local News 12 Long Island anchor Scott Feldman had originally reported on an early broadcast that Flight 800 had collided with a small plane. (Not referenced, and the fact that a local news anchor misreported the cause of the accident when information was first developing is not surprising, nor worth mentioning)
• The mother of National Football League player Eddie George, the previous year's Heisman Trophy winner and a rookie-to-be with the Houston Oilers, was supposed to have been a flight attendant aboard this plane. However, Eddie's agent persuaded her to change her schedule so she could be in San Antonio on July 19 to attend Eddie's signing of his first NFL contract. (Again, not she is not notable by Wikipedia standards)
• French-born Mother of a 3 year old son, Stephanie Veit, was scheduled to fly on TWA Flight 800 to go to her godson's baptism in France. The day before TWA 800 took off from JFK Airport, Ms. Veit switched to a flight from St. Louis to Paris because it required her to have fewer connections from Seattle. Ms. Veit was on the passenger list, but never boarded since she left with the St. Louis flight. (Again, not notable) Lipsticked Pig 06:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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."[13] 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 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[14], 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 [15] 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"[16] 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 [17], 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)

[18]

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)

[19]

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: [20] 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 [21] 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)

[22] [23]

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.[24]

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[25] 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 [26] 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: [27] 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: [28]

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)