Talk:TWA Flight 800/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title: Microwave Theory

message: 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)
thread_title:  Passengers 

message: 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)
thread_title:  mandatory ID 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Photo? 

message: 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 . Bayerischermann 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks much improved as of today. ⇒Bayerischermann  - 19:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Theory POV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  fuel change 

message: 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 (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.  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
69.163.62.160 20:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Witness Observations Too Detailed? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  the real cause 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: ''[[Seconds From Disaster]]'' documentary

message: *TWA Flight 800 - poor and, at the time of submission, inaccurate coverage of the NTSB report. Cedars 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From PNA/Aerospace 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Cause

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Microseconds??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The CNN storytelling

message: 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)
thread_title:  Three Windows? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scarpa and Agent DeVecchio clarity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Investigation Timeline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Let's work on this article! 

message: 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)
thread_title: New lead and 1st section

message: 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.".NEWSbytes, Kentucky Kernel, August, 29, 1996. (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.Agent's Persuasion Kept Heisman Winner's Mother Off Doomed Airliner, Abilene Reporter-News, August 10, 1996. (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)
thread_title: "Trivia" section cleanup