Talk:TWA Flight 800

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject New York (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Aviation accidents (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.
WikiProject United States / FBI (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject FBI (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Where are the wings?[edit]

There are numerous pictures of the wings being recovered from the ocean during the recovery mission. Has anyone been able to track down where the wings are being stored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ideas for improving the article[edit]

(Previous Talk was getting long so I archived it...)

The article is getting too long, and yet there is still much that is missing and needs to be added. Existing sections need to be pared down a bit; this is especially true for the technical sections.

Things are getting a bit disordered, so while the article generally follows chronological order a lot of the analysis done much later got put in the earlier sections. I think its best to first set the table, then eat the food.

We need to have a section on the unique situation of a "parallel" investigation involving the NTSB and FBI, of background, tensions, political aspects to it. The NTSB didn't air their dirty laundry, so we have to find other reliable sources. Another editor mentioned a book on the previous Talk page that sounds good. Its a VERY important issue with this crash. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

12-hour or 24-hour clock[edit]

WP:MOSTIME doesn't specify this, but I think its common sense that one format or the other needs to be mantained throughout the article when discussing the timing of events around the crash. Currently we have a 24-hour clock in the Lede, and the next paragraph reverts to the 12-hour clock, and switches back to 24-hour Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Gray article[edit]

I removed this from the accident flight section, concerns more the events after the crash. Also I don't see it as a reliable source that "Crash Central" was in fact the common name for the Ramada Inn; if you read the article it is not clear at all who coined/used that phrase. Nonetheless an interesting article and am leaving the reference here so it can be integrated into the article later. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Family members of Flight 800 victims, investigators, media members, and TWA employees gathered at the Ramada Inn at JFK Airport, whereupon the hotel became known as "Crash Central".[1]

  • Lipsticked: The Houston Press is a reliable source, so we should take the "Crash Central" name at face value. Also events after the crash are very much relevant to the article. Why not leave the information in the article? Then see if someone can figure out a better way to organize it. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Houston Press is a reliable source, but sourcing from the article "After the Crash" that "Crash Central" was the commonly used phrase for the Ramada Inn I don't think is correct. What the article said was:
"The Ramada Inn at JFK was "Crash Central," the gathering place for the 230 victims' families as well as investigators, the TWA "go team," and the media."
That's very different than the edit that stated:
"whereupon the hotel became known as "Crash Central"
I don't see from the context of the original sentence whether that was just Lisa Gray's name for the Ramada Inn or used by many others Lipsticked Pig (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, moved the Ramada Inn stuff back to the Wreckage Recovery section since the events described in it were happening then. Changed "victims" to "passengers and crew" since at the time many were holding out hope that their relatives somehow made it (as described in articles). Removed reference to investigators, since that conflicts with information above it (where the Calverton hanger is described as the "command and control center for the investigation") Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities infoboxes make me cry[edit]

They are so fn retarded, look at this article and Korean Air Lines Flight 007...the flags for the sake of having flags result in a minimal amount of infomation being conveyed with an incredible waste of space. At least they get collapsed in some articles. But as much as I hate them, they do seem to be convention, so how about this: resize it if possible, and put it to the side of the accident flight section? Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I give up, I couldn't find out how to both align the table left or right and also have text next to it. Also, making it collapsible looked like crap too. I changed the font to be smaller, which I think looks better. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Style="float:right" seemed to do the trick for Korean Air Lines Flight 007. Doesn't work here because of all the other stuff on the right-hand margin. I agree with your sentiments, nationality infoboxes are like a macabre inverted version of an Olympic medal table - ugh. You've done a good job tidying-up here. (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
What happened to the Nationalities Infobox? And003 (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It was deleted 19 February 2013. The table had existed for years with a citation-needed tag and was deleted as no reliable source was found. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok, but now it's back and its content doesn't match the 2nd paragraph of the section. One or the other is necessarily wrong. (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I was bold and removed it. Its contradicted the second paragraph which is referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Eastwind Airlines ATC recording[edit]

Added this because I think the audio file complements the associated text, plus the pilot's decription (the "landing light") ends up being important later (evidence of the NTSB's theory, or a missile strike, depending on your point of view) Lipsticked Pig (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wreckage recovery section trim[edit]

I cut almost half this section, and I think its a lot better for it:

  • 1. The NAVSEA cite was dead (and not only that, the link was an executable that you were supposed to run, WTF?)
  • 2. Saying that "Numerous recovery divers required hyperbaric oxygen treatments for decompression sickness" doesn't seem to me to be relevant or notable. Recovery dives were occuring at depths of more than 100 feet, and of 752, 10 required hyperbaric oxygen treatment. Doesn't seem unusual or notable at all. You certainly can't show that from the provided link. That is not to say the dives were not dangerous, and the effort made by the recovery teams was commendable (it most certainly was). Its just that saying that sometimes they required oxygen treatment after diving is non-notable trivia for purposes of this article.
  • 3. Cut off all that stuff immediately after: "As the wreckage recovery progressed, three main debris fields emerged. The yellow zone, red zone, and green zone contained wreckage from front, center and rear sections of the airplane, respectively" ...because naming all the numbered fuselage stations, beam sections, etc. is just repeating the above in technical jargon. The two sentences and the graphics are all that is needed.
  • 4. Cut off the stuff about burn and soot analysis of the recovery wreckage, which all will be moved to the the analysis section. (This is the "Wreckage Recovery" section, which deals with the initial recovery efforts, what/how they recovered, where, etc.)
  • 5. Removed analysis of possibility of explosive detonation, which already in the article in the analysis section. This was one of many edits by an editor who insisted at every mention of the possibility of an high-explosive event to insert disclaimers, resulting in needless repetition of text.
  • 6. Moved the final wreckage location information to Aftermath section Lipsticked Pig (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tail Registration Nos and the Crash Infobox[edit]

The crash infoboxes make an external link of the a/c registration number, which just goes to an ASN crash info page, NOT a page which gives the history for that airframe. I've unlinked the reg number. If you can link it to an appropriate page please do so, but please don't just relink it back to ASN. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a page that could be used if you wanted to link the tail no. in the infobox to an outside page: Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Whack-a-mole Peter Lance[edit]

What is what I believe to be essentially a plug for the Peter Lance conspiracy book keeps getting inserted into the article after being taken out. You can see the Peter Lance page itself is an (admitted - see edit history) WP:COI product. TWA Flight 800 alternative theories page is the place for TWA 800 alternative theories, and only those which can be sourced properly. John Barry's cargo door theory is most definitely NOT one of those; the sources are just self-published, and besides, the cargo door was found intact, with the latched attached/locked Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Another major trim[edit]

Dumped the whole CVR/FDR analysis section; the stuff about the transient noise analysis was easily summarized as "In addition, a noise recorded on the last few tenths of a second of the CVR was analyzed and found to be similar to the last noises recorded on other airplanes that had experienced in-flight breakups" (that quote almost verbatim from the Final Report). The interference on the Captain's CVR channel and fuel flow indicator comment can go in the FQS wiring section, again, probably summarized in one sentence or two. The incredibily long and boring sequencing section was cut entirely; the paragraph at the start of the "Fuel/air explosion in the center wing fuel tank (CWT) section" can probably be expanded to twice its current size and sum up all that was in the deleted section adequately, especially since we have the NTSB sequencing video to illustrate their findings. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Images in galleries[edit]

Some of those are crappy quality screenshots from the Final Report .pdf document. I'll try to find better originals to upload, especially the radar data (I would like readers to be able to click on those and view in detail). Lipsticked Pig (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reworked Lede[edit]

Tried to fix some of the clunky wording, got rid of the unsourced (and technically untrue when you consider the 9/11 attacks) factoid about death toll ranking (can maybe be reinserted into the article main, the lede is not the place for it),

Reconsideration: actually, it probably is, but I reinserted into accident flight which works too, change it to the lede if you feel strongly that's better.

changed the summary of probable cause (instead of "faulty wiring" I made it "short circuit", my argument being faulty wiring does not, by itself, initiate explosions, a short circuit does),

Reconsideration: Originally the verbatim Probable cause was in there, and an editor replaced it with a, er, summary, which I can see the logic behind. The tricky part is how to accurately summarize it, I don't know if I've done the best job.

and added a bit about legacy, which I hope to expand in the aftermath section later. Going to fix the cites of the lede now. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Got rid of the EDT/UTC conversion in the lede's 1st sentence; I don't see in WP:MOS where having the UTC equivalent is suggested, and besides, what is important in any crash article in the local time, this has nothing to do with being North American-centric. I put the UTC time/date conversion in the infobox instead, its way to long and clunky for the opening sentence. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed seat plan image[edit]

It isn't like other accident reports where the seat map documents who was killed/seriously injured/minor injured/not injured (example: American Airlines Flight 1420). In this case the NTSB didn't even bother to mark which seats were occupied before takeoff since they had every reason to believe people moved to unoccupied seats. So essentially its just a seating map of an empty 747, and not really informative of the crash of TWA 800 at all. I'm concerned that with only 4 paragraphs in that section, 2 pic boxes and the audio clip will generally format badly for most people. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If we could find better quality images of the charts that are here [[1]] we should consider adding them to the article Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Victim's families and the investigation[edit]

Changed the Ramada Inn to be just the gathering place for families (not media), one article used as a cite says media were not allowed inside the hotel, which makes sense (they probably waited outside), so to avoid confusion a dropped it. The stuff about the families being angry and putting pressure on the investigation is well-documented and notable since it did affect the investigation. "Forensic tests" isn't quite the phrase I was looking for, if you look at pg.3 of the cite and read the relevant paragraph you might be able to figure out a way to phrase that better. The thing about Bob Francis backtracking and having to say that victim recovery was the #1 priority, while acknowledging that this would hinder the crash investigation I saw last night, I think it was a Time article. Just can't find it right now but I will find it again and then add the cite to that sentence. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Accident" vs. "Crash"[edit]

At first I thought we should stick with "accident", the term that investigators use to describe a crash, even it it had a deliberate cause. However the most common and colloquial term for TWA 800 in the media and arguably overall is "crash". I'd just like whatever term is preferred to be used consistently in the article; currently its a mix of "accident" and "crash". An exception would be any of the direct quotes from the Final Report which use the term "accident flight", accident airplane", etc. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Accident," please. Use "crash" sparingly, for emphasis. Binksternet (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
OK then, I'll use "accident" and assume that is crash article convention. Will redo accordingly, "crash" will still be used occasionally for emphasis and prose. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Cleanup To-Do list[edit]

1. Add as the 2nd paragraph to the "Analysis of reported witness observations" section which BRIEFLY sums up the Sequencing Group's analysis of the post-accident, pre-breakup crippled flight sequence (and do NOT use the term "z**m climb", that's a straw man argument putting words into the NTSB's mouth). That will then lead into the 3rd paragraph logically.

2. Trim the "Fuel/air explosion in the center wing fuel tank" subsection

3. Trim the "Fuel quantity indication system" subsection

Conflicting interests subsection[edit]

This subsection will (briefly) discuss tensions/confusion between the NTSB and FBI as well as the families during the investigation. Some good sourcing can be found here: Lipsticked Pig (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

'Notable passengers' section should be deleted[edit]

The implication is that their deaths are more important than the other passengers' deaths. Sorry but that is how it seems. Please delete, or name all of them. This article is about the crash not the passengers. Furthermore I have never even heard of most of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's very subjective, and I had deleted many of those entries prevously as being non-notable. Other editors proved me wrong by creating articles for them that showed their notability. Still I say, FOR THE FIFTH TIME, being the wife or daughter of a famous musician does not make you "notable". I myself think that having the section isn't necessary (exceptions would be VERY notable people, like a congressman on KAL 007, etc.), however its the convention for these crash articles right now, so.... In any case, having it as a list is craptastic, so I would like to change that at some future date. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Any person that's in the notable passengers section must satisfy WP:BIO or WP:BLP. If they do not, then they do not meet Wikipedia's definition of notability. This removes the subjective nature of the listing. Mkdwtalk 18:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that listing of certain individuals and their notability or lack thereof is open to interpretation. Discussing them here on the talk page is probably a best practice. Having said that, before I noticed this section, I had restored the mention for the French club. The number of people from one town and group was definitely highlighted in the original media coverage and, as seen by the citation, in its followup. — MrDolomite • Talk 19:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The point is well taken re: subjectivity of listing 'notables,' including relatives of notables. Nonetheless, since the section remains, I'm asking the author to add: Dalila Lucien, 17-year-old daughter of the late ballardeer Jon Lucien and Ana Marie Shorter, wife of famous jazz saxophonist Wayne Shorter. Thank you. (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Baka Dade; Source:

Why is, as of 9/15/15, Renee Greene on the list of notable passengers? There is nothing at all in her description that would qualify under Wikipedia's notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

CIA article[edit]

Its good stuff and should get integrated into the body of the article (doesn't really belong in lede). It would be great for the article in general to have more sourcing from FBI and others rather than just the NTSB Final Report. The article also has some interesting statements ("witness statements were remarkably consistent") which is directly contradictory of the NTSB. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't the only contradiction with the NTSB Final Report. Overall less weight should be given to it than the NTSB witness analysis, BUT, considering how much media coverage the CIA animation received at the time, the background of its creation, how it was constructed, and public reaction to it (along with a screenshot or link to the video) should be added to the article, probably at the start of the "Analysis of reported witness observations" section. Lipsticked Pig (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


  1. ^ Gray L (1997). "After the Crash". Houston Press: 3. Retrieved 2008-06-18. 

Confusing picture[edit]

On the top right on the main page is a picture of the supposedly reconstructed TWA 747-131. A Boeing 747-131 only has 3 windows on the right side of the top deck yet in the picture 9 windows are clearly visible on the top deck. Just do a simple google image search of the tail number 'N93119' and those pictures will also confirm the aircraft only has 3 windows on the top deck. So what is this aircraft shown? Well it is either a Boeing 747SP or a 747-200, it has to be a 747SP as TWA never owned a -200? I could be wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt7272727272 (talkcontribs) 18:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See this discussion [2]: 6 of the 9 windows on each side were blanked, apparently high-resolution print images (two in the thread - I didn't look) show the outlines. The blanked windows were blown out, along with the glazed windows (probably on impact). Only a few early 747s were made with just three windows on each side, but TWA had some of the early ones and apparently wanted all to look the same. Acroterion (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
While the a/c in question only flew in service for TWA, it had at one point been sold to the Goverment of Iran (IIRC) and was subject to some modifications, including the top row of windows. This sale did not go through, and the a/c was returned to service with TWA. These modifications included the number of windows you noted above. It is noted somewhere in the NTSB report. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Iranian 747 incident[edit]

I find it odd that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that an identical 747, owned by the Iranian military, also blew up in midair some years prior to TWA 800. In a Pulitzer prize-winning article here, Seattle Times reporter Byron Acohido explains that as a result of the Iranian Air Force disaster, Boeing "took steps" to make 747 fuel tanks safer. Perhaps someone should insert something in the Wiki article to reflect this precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's some great material from a good source that the article would benefit much from. LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

#3 Thrust Reverser and VSO shutoff[edit]

I didn't remember this stuff and its kind of interesting but I am not sure its relevant enough for inclusion. The thrust reverser issue is mentioned in passing I think just because it was a branch of the fault tree that had to be examined (ever since Lauda Air Flight 004) and then dismissed. And when I searched for "volumetric shutoff" and "VSO" in the given reference (the Final Report) I didn't see that statement at all (maybe the ref tag got messed up?) so I put a {citation needed} tag (that was my anon edit). Again I'm not sure of the relevance (the VSO wiring is related to/is part of the CWT wiring, I think, but I don't believe it was particularly suspect(?). In comparison, I feel mentioning the disabled ground equipment/baggage mismatch mention in the next paragraph is necessary, since the delay at the gate, which is considered casual to the crash, should be explained. Just one opinion...Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points! I agree that according to the final report there is no evidence that the locked-out thrust reverser did contribute to the accident. There are the "alternative theories", and hence detailing the overall technical state of the plane might be (somewhat) relevant. Feel free to cut this out if this makes the section too long, or seems too irrelevant to you. The override on the automatic volumetric shutoff for the fueling system, however, might be more to the point, since the final report concludes that the accident was caused by an explosion of the center wing fuel tank. Hence any anomaly of the fueling system of the plane seems worth mentioning. Thanks for catching the inconsistency with the reference (the VSO discussion might have been in the intermediate report - I'll take a look and will update the reference accordingly). Greetings, Enemenemu (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed geodata[edit]

I did look briefly at WP:GEO, but am not sure I "got it". Was that geodata added to the article on 08:14, September 25, 2008 by The Anomebot2? Where does The Anomebot2 get those coordinates from and what do they mean (CWT explosion? Nose falling off? The fireball?) The coordinates given as well as what they represent are dubious, no? LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC) + If you look at other accident reports you will see geo coordinates; here is an example from the Valuejet Everglades crash report: "The location of the primary impact crater was 25° 55’ north latitude, 80° 35’ west longitude, or approximately 17 miles northwest of MIA." There they give a spot in the map. But this is what I see in the TWA 800 report: "Pieces of the airplane wreckage were discovered floating on and beneath the surface of the Atlantic Ocean about 8 miles south of East Moriches, New York. The main wreckage was found on the ocean floor, between 40° 37’ 42" and 40° 40’ 12" north latitude and 72° 40’ 48" and 72° 35’ 38" west longitude." That's a big area, it's not a point on the map. I'll look some more at WP:GEO and see if there is a way to put a range in there, otherwise I think we are much better off with nothing rather than some arbitrary location for "where the crash occurred" LoveUxoxo (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Lede edits: Rechecked cites and updated, added cite and corrected terminology for NTSB Board meeting/Final report, removed wikilink that seemed unecessary, removed "was the most expensive and exhaustive investigation ever conducted by the board" (uncited and extremely dubious/subjective), added back part of 4th para - not the CIA report stuff which is awesome, and will add back into article body: "CIA Report 14Aug08">{{cite news | author=Tauss, Randolph M.| title= The Crash of TWA Flight 800 | date=August 14, 2008 | url= |accessdate=March 24, 2010 LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC) + Added back that quote in the lede that I called "extremely dubious/subjective" (found the cite for it), LOL @ me. Also added from the CIA paper about their sound-propagation analysis to the Witness Analysis section LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
...removed UTC equivalent of EDT time in lede; the UTC time is listed in the crash infobox and I think the most important thing here is economy of words LoveUxoxo (talk) 07:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Put the geodata back in. "The main wreckage was found on the ocean floor, between 40° 37’ 42" and 40° 40’ 12" north latitude and 72° 40’ 48" and 72° 35’ 38" west longitude", so I found the midpoint in each range (in my head, with some vague recollection of base 60 for minutes/seconds). Since the wreckage was found in an area "about 4 miles long by 3 1/2 miles wide" and WP:OPCOORD told me I got 1.85km precision at the equator with 1 minute of precision I rounded it to 40 39' N, 72 38' W and put that in. Someone check my math. Sure I don't like doing business like this, but at least now there is a reason. What was in there before was less precise because it was "more precise". And believe me, nanotechnology like that Geobot is the doom of us all. It's got airplanes flying into state capitols in other crash articles (not kidding). Thanks for putting up with me. LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I left a cite needed tag on the nationalities list. I'm not challenging it or anything, its probably accurate. But often with dual-nationalities and stuff, you can get different tallies. I looked only briefly for a source for a breakdown of victims by nationality and didn't find. It might be in one of our sources already, I don't remember. Cheers! LoveUxoxo (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Flight 800 files[edit]

See: Talk:TWA Flight 800/stuff WhisperToMe (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Aftermath vs. International Memorial sections[edit]

"On July 17, 2008 [almost 12 years after the accident, IOW, in the the Aftermath of the accident] the Secretary of Transportation visited the facility and announced a final rule designed to prevent more accidents..." The rest of the Intermational Memorial section continues on with stuff that should be in the Aftermath section, imho. The Aftermath section is too short. The International Memorial's section would then be stuck with a 1 sentence 2nd paragraph. The SoT just happened to be at the memorial. If positions of the sections were swapped...just a thought...And why would all the stuff presently in the Aftermath not be in the "in the media" section? The internet does not count as "in the media?" Try in the Aftermath section: "In the aftermath of the accident, and its ensuing investigation, the ntsb forced new rules in the following electrical codes associated with airplane gas tanks which were void of flammable liquid but possibly contained flammable vapors......and these rules are:1) 2) 3)" ...just a thought. Due to the subject of the article, ...well, ugly subject's got to be written — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

How many visitors a year does the International Memorial get? Has any notable source criticized/praised the architechure or site of the International Memorial? Does the Memorial charge a fee to visit, if so, where do the proceeds go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


Why is there no mention of the students and teachers from Montoursville High School that died in this flight? Erikeltic (Talk) 02:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, someone deleted it. Apparently the death of the entire French club from a small town's high school is not notable to some. Erikeltic (Talk) 02:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
It's always difficult determining notability of victims. I've before deleted named persons I thought non-notable, only to reconsider. You can look back in the history and see that the wife of Wayne Shorter has been added and deleted countless times (I just looked and she's back in, but I think should not be). I think that mention of the Montoursville High School group is appropriate. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In the Media[edit]

"Nelson Demmille" or Nelson DeMille? Redundancy: twice mentions his 2004 novel. jen (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous references[edit]

So, the NTSB changed its filing system, and all the links to the NTSB final report were dead. In changing them, I found 80+ detailed references like this, which I had to change manually one at a time. <ref name="Final Report p.313">{{cite journal | author=National Transportation Safety Board | year=2000 | title=Aircraft Accident Report: In-flight Breakup Over the Atlantic Ocean Trans World Airlines Flight 800 | journal=NTSB/AAR-00/03 Appendixes | pages=p.313 | url= | format=PDF |accessdate=April 5, 2011}}</ref>

Is there any rational reason that the reference couldn't simply be <ref>NTSB Final Report, page 313</ref>? I mean, the super-detailed link does not go to the specific page of the pdf anyways; it adds nothing more than the simple pointer, and it makes editing the article a big mess for anyone who is not an expert in navigating references. If the very instance is detailed, plus you have it in the external links and suggested reading, then al that is required by the manual of style is "NTSB FInal Report, op cit, page x." Thatcher 19:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

  • All the other NTSB links are dead too. They rearranged their web site and I can't find the exhibits or other reports. Thatcher 20:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
All those refs were me. I had copied the cite template from MOS, and yeah, it is overly-detailed and I agree with what you said. At the time I didn't know what I was doing, so just did it one way. LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want to leave a note here and say that I cleaned this up substantially, by using <ref name="Final Report" />{{rp|xx}} on subsequent references, where the xx is the page number for the specific reference. This way, there's only one actual reference ("Final Report") and you only have to add the page number, and in the "References" section the NTSB final report only shows up once instead of 100 times. This is a far better way of doing things. Now, if the URL needs to be updated, it only has to be updated once in the initial <ref name="Final Report">{{cite journal blah blah blah}}</ref> and it works across all invocations of that reference. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"Deadliest" ranking in lede[edit]

I don't think it should be there, really just one sentence in the body (as currently) will suffice. Now we have American Airlines Flight 191 and American Airlines Flight 587 in the second sentence of the lede even though they have NOTHING to do with this crash. 230 fatalities is inherently notable, and that number relative to other crashes does very little to impart (or take away from) notability, with the one exception of whatever crash is the superlative "most deadly". It's just so arbitrary anyway; the events of 9/11 do not count as the deadliest aircraft crashes in the U.S. even though before then ground fatalities were traditionally included in the death toll. It's a factoid that has very little utility, for instance, you could add to the lede of Air New Zealand Flight 901 that it was the LEAST deadly regularly-scheduled passenger flight accident in Antarctica, ever, (which is true). Anyway if you all feel the same maybe someone should revert that addition to this article. And yeah, don't add that to the Flight 901 article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Video links "page not found"[edit]

In section "In-flight breakup sequence and crippled flight" the two video links lead to "page not found". W1 m2 (talk) 05:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Archive: In the media[edit]

Archive of the 'In the media' section of the article. Placed here in the event that the referencing/relevancy issue can be resolved by discussion. This is what should have been done instead of "boldly" deleting it. In addition Tom Clancy uses this accident as the basis of something mentioned in the novel 'Shadow Watch' where the villains are discussing the testing of their prototype EMP weapon.

"And the crash of the 747 commuter plane in Los Angeles some months back. American investigators attributed its explosion after takeoff due to a spark in the conductive wiring inside the center fuel tank. This was true. But the cause of the spark remained undetermined in official reports, and the abrupt retirement of a senior FBI official who publicly speculated that it might have been a microwave pulse was swept under the agency's very large carpet.

Shadow Watch, Penguin Books, 1999, p. 275 Graham1973 (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting —and telling — that this Wikipedia article makes no mention of James Sanders, nor of his 1997 book, "The Downing Of TWA Flight 800" (ISBN 978-0821758298), written in collaboration with investigative journalist Jack Cashill. — QuicksilverT @ 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

2013.06.19 Changes to the intro[edit]

I've edited (diff) the intro from " TWA 800 was the second-deadliest U.S. aviation accident after American Airlines Flight 191 until American Airlines Flight 587, which also took off from JFK Airport two months after the September 11 attacks" to "TWA 800 was the second-deadliest U.S. aviation accident after American Airlines Flight 191 until American Airlines Flight 587 crashed on November 12, 2001."

My rationale for the change is that AAL587 is unrelated to 9/11 therefore there needs to be no reference to it in that regard. It seems to me that the use of mentioning 9/11 was as a reference date to when TWA800 went from second to third deadliest crash. In my opinion, we provide better information if we just give the exact date of the change in status.

I don't know if there was ever a consensus for including 9/11 in the intro. If there was, feel free to revert my edit and or discuss if it makes sense changing to what it is now. Cheers! --WingtipvorteX PTT 14:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it also makes little sense to include the 9/11 in that sentence. AA587 has, in fact, nothing to do with 9/11. But, when you talk about AA587, you will probably mention that it was just 2 months after 9/11, and, due to that, many people believed it was a terrorist act (and some still do!). But this article is not about AA587. And, if that reference were actually included, readers would be "bombarded" with 4 (series of) plane crashes is just one sentence! It could cause confusion... In fact, I think that, to improve the sentence, commas should be added after and before "after American Airlines Flight 191". But thank you very much for your contributions, Wingtipvortex! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 18:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Flight number[edit]

Flight numbers in general and commercial use are preceded by the two-character IATA airline designators - three-letter ICAO airline designators are used by traffic control and other aviation authorities. When we discuss Trans World Airline's flight 800, it should be referred to as TW 800, not TWA 800 and changed to the intro as well. Mstuomel (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, "TWA 800" is the most common naming convention for this flight. The NTSB report uses it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The flight number TW 800 is currently not even mentioned in the article. NTSB probably uses the ICAO designator as used by aviation authorities, like with other reports. However, the name of the airline has conveniently a three-letter abbreviation (TWA) that could be confused with its IATA and ICAO designators. In any case, I think its commercial, ticketed flight number/code, which is something ordinary passengers and media would normally see everywhere, should be included on this page and also elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mstuomel (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

2013 information about missile theory[edit]

see --Kebap (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that new info has already been added. -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous/Expert Language[edit]

I am a general reader, and, after re-reading, I'm still not sure what a 30-knot radar track is. I'm guessing "military surface targets" means naval vessels, but I'm not sure why the word targets is in there:

The NTSB addressed allegations that the Islip radar data showed groups of military surface targets converging in a suspicious manner in an area around the accident, and that a 30-knot radar track, never identified and 3 NM from the crash site, was involved in foul play, as evidenced by its failure to divert from its course and assist with the search and rescue operations.[71] Military records examined by the NTSB showed no military surface vessels within 15 NM of TWA 800 at the time of the accident.[71] In addition, the records indicated that the closest area scheduled for military use, warning area W-387A/B, was 160 NM south.[71]

Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the whole article could use a re-write to use less technical terms. The above paragraph is a good example. (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Entering original research territory[edit]

This edit seems to be heading that way. I really don't know about the subject, so I'll let others handle it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


Apparently Wikithunderbird (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC) are not required when editing an article and are used for convenience on a talk page like this. I assume that I need to be signed in (now done so for the 30 days) for my ID to appear. If not signed in then I guess the update still takes by without my ID. Is that correct?

On the subject of original research ---- I am attempting to correct significant errors in the 'original research' presented in the FINAL REPORT. My basis is rigorous and I don't speculate on the causes of the tragedy. However, when error(s) are included the FINAL REPORT they must be recognized, documented, and understood. My goal is to explain such errors in a manner that someone such as yourself will be able to understand. Please let me know if there is something unclear in my posts.

Wikithunderbird (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not try to correct the errors you see in the Final Report. Instead, Wikipedia is able to tell the reader of any such corrections that have been published. If the corrections have not been published yet, then Wikipedia must close its eyes to them. That is the essence of WP:No original research... that Wikipedia is not the place to make new arguments or corrections. You must publish the findings in a WP:Reliable source before bringing them here. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
For instance:

That particular section of the FINAL REPORT is notable for containing many SPOTs (Single Point Of Truth). Even one SPOT is sufficient to contradict and falsify an erroneous premise or argument. Such falsifications can often occur in the context of Mathematical Proofs. In the current case the second paragraph of page 93 flatly states that, "In all three cases, the sequences of primary targets appeared with no radar track leading to them [...] and there were no primary or secondary tracks leading to or away from them. Taking the sequence of the first five radar returns from the table above, you will soon be able to see that the NTSB's assertion here is clearly FALSE

— User:Wikithunderbird
You included a quote from somewhere (without closing the quote or attributing it to the NTSB report properly). Everything else in that paragraph is your personal evaluation of what NTSB says. Neither you nor anyone else on Wikipedia functions as an expert in anything. We editors only cobble together reliable sources. When sources disagree, we can stop to discusshow to proceed. At no point may any editor just type out what they personally believe to be correct. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikithunderbird I know its very frustrating when you work hard on edits and then they are immediately reverted, but I have to be honest with you, I don't see how your recent work can ever fit in this encyclopedia article. It appears to be simply your analysis of the evidence, and this article isn't a place appropriate for that. Also I had a hard time following whatever points you were trying to make. (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Pictures of the accident aircraft[edit]

If there is some confusion over whether the accident aircraft has 3 windows on the upper deck or not, I believe this has to do with when the aircraft, owned by TWA but sold to the government of Iran, underwent modifications. The sale was cancelled, and the aircraft returned to TWA with more windows. (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Cockpit video recorder data[edit]

Could the pilot's mention of unusual fuel gauge readings be included a bit more prominently? It would make sense for this to be in either the "Accident flight" or the "Further investigation and analysis" sections. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ramsi Yousef[edit]

Why is there no mention of evidence that Al Qaeda's master 1993 World Trade Center Bomber Ramsi Yousef may have plotted to bomb TWA Flight 800? The fact that all references to this have been removed from both this article and the Flight 800 article suggests that somebody is trying to censor this information. Redhanker (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you start looking for WP:Reliable sources about this you will quickly see that nothing reliable exists, only unreliable blogs and rants. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Is verbal testimony from eyewitnesses not good enough for you, Binksternet? — QuicksilverT @ 17:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


I seem to remember reading that a major Picasso painting was among the cargo destroyed in the crash. Does anyone else remember hearing anything like this? I'm trying to find out more about it. --RThompson82 (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Additional literature[edit]

Roach, Mary (2003). Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 113–121.  Unknown parameter |allpages= ignored (help) -- Wesha (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. knew of wiring flaws years before TWA crash[edit]

U.S. knew of wiring flaws years before TWA crash --Pelle Hansen (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

controversy citations[edit]

the article states that there were "claims of evidence tampering". in the official administrative oversight hearing, transcript located here, it is testified under oath that said 'tampering' did in fact take place and is described for the record, accused names are confirmed, & several witnesses are alluded to. a wealth of info regarding the conspiracy theories is addressed as well for anyone that wishes to read page on page of congressional hearings. Jill Orly (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on TWA Flight 800. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Best Evidence: TWA Flight 800 Episode Summary on
  2. ^ Conspiracy?: TWA Flight 800 Episode Summary on
  3. ^ National Geographic Channel Seconds From Disaster: TWA Flight 800 Episode Summary on