Talk:TWA Flight 800/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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).

on the above. Major Fred Mayer not only saw the plane shot down but he was also chosen to fly damaged parts to Washington and at that time was able to evaluate damaged parts.

Arydberg (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2008 (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)

Perhaps this will help,

http://www.generalpartin.org/twa800.htm Arydberg (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (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)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3