Talk:TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories

message: The IAMAW section doesn't belong on the alternative theories page. The IAMAW was a party to the investigation and submitted its report based on the facts as they saw them. The report offers NO "alternate theory" perse and so states that the precise cause of the crash could not be determined. Author51 02:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did wonder if it would be best in the main article, which focuses on the NTSB investigation, of which the IAMAW was an invited party (their report is included in the official docket). However since the IAMAW report disagrees with the most fundamental finding of the NTSB Final Report, the probable cause, that reason for the TWA 800 crash was an explosion of the CWT (they state that the CWT exploded AFTER the aircraft started to break up), I think it qualifies as an alternative theory. They probably are due mention in the main article as an official dissenter. Lipsticked Pig 07:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, let's do that then. Of course this entire page has been selected for deletion, so it appears there is no legitimate way to offer anything other than the "official position." That means of course that the IAMAW submission will never see the light of day, to many who may rely on this rather dubious source of information, called Wikipedia. Author51 13:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IAMAW section

message: Just wondering if there is a better way to title these sections? I'd prefer to see them titled with something that describes the theory maybe (name could be included). Is this possible? Strawberry Island 20:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section Titles: using names of people?

message: Could someone tell me what happened to the section on "Missile theory"
Arydberg (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened was the serbian war ended around 1996, the russians were backing up serbia, because they knew that the west instigated regime change or a chain reaction in the slavic states.  The russians launched a missile as retaliation eg regime chain or government overthrow results in mass civilian casualties, and is fairly dangerous if one finds out the perpertator, eg america.  Well, anyways the FBI had to cover up the attack because they couldn't intercept the missile in time.  They launched 2 or 3 more missiles at the plane as a covert operation to downplay their role in the serbian war.  Til this day, submarines are indetectable, and nuclear devices can be launched from anywhere in the world.  Nazi Germany owned the world this way, through its superior submarine fleet whilst they can't be intercepted they can however be intercepted by other submarines via sonar radar.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdc1980 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: "Missile theory"

message: I did a study of the crash and reached a conclusion that we had been lied to by the government.  I am a licensed pilot with a BS in Physics.   Some of the issues I found troubling were:
1)  Jet A fuel simply does not explode.
2)  How did a huge I beam move from the tail section to the forward end of the aircraft.  
3)  Why were the front landing gear doors blown inward? 
4)  Why were there so many witness?
5)   Why did it take one week to recover the black boxes?
Arydberg (talk) 19:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Arydberg. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself. This isn't a forum for general comments on the topic itself. Thanks. RxS (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 questions 

message: The book “Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press” devotes an entire chapter to facts about the official suppression of the events around the TWA800 crash. It is impossible to not classify this book as a WP:RS. The editor and contributors are all well-known public figures. The book was published by the established publisher Prometheus Books.MaxPont (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'll try to borrow a copy and integrate the appropriate chapter into the article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing source that can improve RS for this article

message: There's an interesting programme on YouTube here;  about the missile shoot-down theory, that someone editing the article may find useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.27 (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting programme on YouTube

message: In this section is a reference to WPIX as Long Island's only TV station.  WPIX is a NYC station and, as far as I know, has no special connection with Long Island (although there is a Long Island TV station, WLIW).  Also, the footnote has no reference to WPIX in any way and therefore seems misleading. Wi2g 23:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That whole sentence ("During the investigation, over 200 residents of Long Island reported seeing something resembling a bolt of flame move towards, and strike the aircraft before it exploded.") was inaccurate in so many ways. I've left the Sanders section now basically stating the NTSB said testing consistent w/ adhesives, and that Sanders disputed that. As far as expanding any further on that, trust me, you don't want to go there... (for anyone who thinks Sander's independent laboratory tests proved the substance consistent with rocket fuel, you need to checkout what those independent laboratories actually said, rather than just what Sanders said they said). So that section could go back and forth about "this test that test" ad infinitum (for example, the NASA testing of the solubility of explosive residues in salt water), or we can just leave it as it is now, which I think is better. LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey -everyone - I've opened up a can of *sadderz* at the Bloody Sunday (1972) article and unfortunately that will probably take a lot of my time for a while. I don't like leaving in the middle, but I think my intent is clear and that I left the glass at least "half full". I still have doubts about to what extent Donaldson and Lance can be appropriately cited in the article, uh, good luck! The stuff about cargo door separation can be deleted; its just OR self-published sourced stuff. Cheers, and love you! LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I also remember somebody on Unsolved Mysteries attributing the crash to a missile being launched across the Long Island Sound. That's not even on the same side of Long Island that Flight 800 crashed on, and if it were true, a lot more than 200 residents would've seen this "bolt of a flame," including myself. ----DanTD (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: James Sanders

message: Fairly soon after the crash, a US magazine (whose name escapes me at this stage, but I now suspect to be something similar to "The National Enquirer") published a photo that it claimed "could" have been the missile. It was a photo of a family picnic taken by a member of that family, and in it is a HIGHLY BLURRED thin, dark, elongated object showing a HIGHLY BLURREED tail. As I recall, the essence of the article was the "weasel phrase" that "well if this isn't a missile, then what is it?". I have since been unable to locate said image, so concede that this is certainly not a verifiable allegation. But it is certainly interesting!
There now appears to be a good answer to the "what else could it be?"  question. This web page: 
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap041207.html
shows a similar "strange objeect" with tail. If you follow this link:
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=249
from the APOD page, you will eventually see (there's 85 pages, much of which is heated personal abuse) a well-supportable hypothesis that it is an flying insect close by.
Not sure whether this helps or hinders anybody's case.
Old_Wombat (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Vague reference 

message: What happened to this section? It's supposed to have details about the zoom climb theory but it's full of crap about Pierre Salinger.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Airion101 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radar section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130615201201/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017021323/http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003_app.pdf to http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2000/AAR0003_App.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928021420/http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1998/07/17/900658161.html to http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1998/07/17/900658161.html
*Added  tag to http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/17/twa.flight.800/index.html?eref=sitesearch
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070918041410/http://www.flightsafety.org/ltb_award.html to http://www.flightsafety.org/ltb_award.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930022044/http://www.foiac.org/CourtDocuments.htm to http://www.foiac.org/CourtDocuments.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any citable information regarding the reliability of the FQIS system on the 747-100? Was it like the TPMS on a car in that it often throws incorrect readings or malfunctions from environmental factors? At this point there are fairly sound and reliable investigators that now support the shootdown theory. The fact that they believe that theory makes me wonder if there was something about the FQIS that leads them to believe the captain's remarks about it were not relevant. Or do they just think it was a coincidence? — THORNFIELD HALL (Talk) 08:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shootdown