Talk:TWA Flight 800

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[1] (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.[2] 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[3] 69.163.62.160 20:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although if it was a missile the likely perpetrator (source is perhaps less inflammatory?) is the U.S. Navy.

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.

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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[4], but radar returns from the doomed flight do not show the necessary ground-speed reduction to match these simulations.[5]

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.[6]

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)[reply]

You may have already seen these links [7] [8]; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 I don't see any of the real theories that are backed up by evidence discussed enough. One website for an alternative viewpoint is here [9]. Bayerischermann 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.