Jump to content

Talk:TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.0.57.37 (talk) at 15:54, 24 August 2017 (→External links modified). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAviation: Accidents Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion not met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

IAMAW section

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Section Titles: using names of people?

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)[reply]

News

Govt's case fades............ as Lahr pounds away in FOIA suit vs. NTSB, CIA et al

"the district court found that "the government acted improperly in its investigation of Flight 800, or at least performed in a grossly negligent fashion." V # 104 at 1110. The court properly reviewed the evidence cumulatively, "taken together."

LAHR vs. NTSB, et al

http://www.scientificblogging.com/applied_reason Author51 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This happened over a year ago, its not exactly breaking news. And this misquote, taken entirely out of context, does not convey at all what the judge meant. Judge Matz's rulings were on Rahy Lahr's right to request documents that the goverment denied him per his FOIA requests. His rulings relate to FOIA statutes and previous case law, NOT the legitimacy of his theory on the cause of the TWA 800 crash.
In his intial ruling of August 31, 2006 he wrote: "The ensuing summary characterizes the evidence in a light most favorable to the Plaintiff, but does not reflect or constitue any finding by the court. (emphasis Judge Matz's)
He further states: "For the purpose of determing whether Exemption 7(C) (and other FOIA provisions) are applicable, and only for that purpose, the Court finds that, taken together, this evidence is sufficient to permit Plaintiff to proceed based on his claim that the goverment acted improperly in its investigation of Flight 800, or at least performed in a grossly negligent fashion. Accordingly, the public interest in ferreting out the truth would be compelling indeed."
Almost as if he is speaking directly to Fiorentino, in his second ruling issued October 4, 2006 Judge Matz repeats: "In adopting here its previous finding that the evidence is sufficient to suggest that the goverment acted improperly in its investigation of Flight 800 (or at least performed in a grossly negligent fashion), the Court reiterates that this conclusion is based on a characterization of the evidence most in the light favorable to the Plaintiff, but does not reflect or constitute any finding by the court."
duh... Lipsticked Pig 10:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


....."the Court reiterates that this conclusion is based on a characterization of the evidence most in the light favorable to the Plaintiff.." And WHY do you suppose the court said that? Let me answer my own question. Because the government offered no opposition to Lahr's three statements of Genuine Issue. (see below) Author51 12:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I believe they said that because the Freedom of Information Act states that that is the standard to which a plaintiff is held. The plaintiff is not required to meet "preponderance of the evidence" (the usual standard in US civil court) or "beyond reasonable doubt" (the usual standard in US criminal court) standards in order to merely gain the release of information. The whole point of the FOIA is to enable the release of information.Stian (talk) 07:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are....almost. I most wanted to quote from the Lahr's opening brief in his appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, except I couldn't find any reference acceptable to Wiki.
But let me do that anyway: (excerpts)
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

.............." First, and foremost, the Court must consider plaintiff's proffer regarding fraud, cited in his three Statements of Genuine Issue. Because the government submitted no response to this proof, plaintiff's allegations of fraud and cover-up are uncontroverted and must be viewed as conceded." Gee Mr. Pig, you seem to know more about this case than you want to admit. (apparently) Author51 20:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Message from Ray Lahr Rec'd 9/11/2007
The Ninth District Federal Court ruled that the CIA and NTSB should give me most of the information cited in my FOIA request. The agencies are appealing that decision, and we are filing a cross-appeal. Attached is our Opening Brief which is being submitted today. Ray Author51 20:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Missile theory"

Could someone tell me what happened to the section on "Missile theory" Arydberg (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

5 questions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok but I'm not sure I know the difference.

Does this belong in alternative theories? http://www.generalpartin.org/twa800.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The article appears to be little more than a list of viewpoints by various individuals and organizations. Because of the lack of independent sources, many of these viewpoints are questionable content for an encyclopedia article. --Ronz (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These individuals and organizations are themselves independent. Their viewpoints are all credible inasmuch as they represent things that could have happened. The article does not claim they did happen, that's why it's titled alternative theories.
However, the standard for publication on Wikipedia is not merely credibility, but notability. There are numerous sources listed already, several more suggested in the talk page (e.g. a book which I have not read). Some of these sources extend to television interviews and mainstream media publications. The crash itself was certainly notable, and the fact that reasonable doubt has been established around the "official" explanation of the NTSB makes these "alternative theories" no less so.
I should note that I have no personal involvement with TWA800. I vaguely recall hearing about it on the news as a kid, but had forgotten all about it until today, when I followed a rather random series of links (Steve Jobs -> Carl Icahn -> TWA -> TWA800) to arrive at the article. I do, however, find the possibility of a US government coverup disturbing. If that is what happened, I'd rather not see Wikipedia contribute through self-censorship. Stian (talk) 07:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing source that can improve RS for this article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Interesting programme on YouTube

There's an interesting programme on YouTube here; [1] 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)[reply]

James Sanders

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

A Vague reference

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)[reply]

Rename to Conspiracy Theories?

I haven't properly considered this article in terms of source reliability/notability, but seemings things like this tend to be on more on the fringe side of things, I request this article be scrutinized by some independent editors, with a possibility of changing the wording 'alternative theories' to 'conspiracy theories' so they are not misattributed as being more credible than they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwood0 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea....I agree completely--MONGO 19:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)completely[reply]
Agree. The reliable sources say "conspiracy theories." Tom Harrison Talk 11:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This would also match the page on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Moving as a bold edit in line with the above consensus. FOARP (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One section of the article describes an investigative report prepared by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The report proposed that "a major event may have occurred on the left side of the aircraft [that] could have contributed to or been the cause of the destruction of Flight 800." It is an alternate theory that has nothing whatsoever to do with conspiracy. Another theory, also described in the article, proposes that electromagnetic interference could have caused or contributed to the crash. This theory, too, is purely alternative to the conclusions put forth in the NTSB report on the crash, and has nothing to do with conspiracy. That is, the alternate theory does not propose that electromagnetic interference, if it indeed caused or contributed to the crash, was part of a conspiracy. Some of the alternate theories described in the article, like the missile theory, suggest that the cover-up of the crash's true cause necessarily involve criminal conspiracy, but not all alternate theories make that leap. "TWA Flight 800 alternative theories" therefore seems the more accurate and comprehensive title for the article. I will leave it for now pending discussion.Salon Essahj (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the difference between conspiracy theories (i.e., that the plane was shot down) and 'alternate theories' is important, that would seem to suggest that the alternate theories and the conspiracy theories be separated into different articles. The previous name simply served to validate the idea that the US government (or whoever) conspired to shoot down the plane.
In reality, the "alternate theories" appear to be in the main just conspiracy theories in disguise. For example the electromagnetic interference theory is currently discussed in this article as a US military aircraft causing the crash. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"[J]ust conspiracy theories in disguise." What's in a name? Connotation. All one has to do is label criics as "just conspiracy theorists" to completely discredit them. It seems that would create an environment where conspiracies could flourish, does it not? I admit that some (or many) conspiracy theories are blatantly "out there." But let's not forget that for a time, Woodward and Bernstein were investigating a "conspiracy theory" that turned out to actually BE a conspiracy. A healthy skepticisim is a good thing, and is sometimes justified. Merely food for thought or, if you prefer, talk for the "talk page." (Sorry, don't have my p/w info handy at the moment.) "Jororo05" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.248.185.22 (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for a New Investigation by Original NTSB Investigator

Unfortunately I don't have time to add a whole section at the moment, but the new situation really changes this article. Please update. See this, among numerous other stories. GreenIn2010 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't change a thing. The person behind the documentary has been saying the same thing years (claiming that the radar data shows a high-velocity explosion). It is a "fringe" theory since the weight of scientific opinion is that the resolution of those radar returns isn't fine enough to accurately track small objects ejected from the aircraft. It has received so much attention today since, in order to promote it, a "press release" became "news" as the cable company gets some free publicity. One funny item I noticed in one news story was that they declined to say how much they had paid for it. What a racket.
One, and only one, former NTSB investigator is apparently associated with it (though Vernon gross might as well I suppose). When these news reports refer to an ALPA representative as an "investigator", that's not really accurate. He was an "invited party to the investigation". As for that NTSB guy Hank Hughes (who I do see as Chairman of the Survival Factors Group for several NTSB investigations, so "Senior NTSB Investigator" is accurate), he has been saying this for years as well. There is NOTHING new here. It's just marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.229.51 (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correction -- "Six officials, all of whom participated in the original accident investigation, announced Wednesday morning that they have filed a petition demanding that the government reopen the investigation." These are: former National Transportation Safety Board senior investigator Hank Hughes, former TWA accident investigator Bob Young, Jim Speer from the Air Line Pilots Association . . . who else? Sometimes you need a press release and a film to spark a new look after some time has passed and the efforts by those who MAY have been covering-up are long past. GreenIn2010 (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, if all the recent edits had stated something like "a former senior NTSB investigator as well as industry participants to the original investigation" that would have been fine. But all the edits have parroted the inaccurate news headlines, which just parroted the self-serving press release. TWA did not, nor does any other airline, have an "accident investigator". Rather they send a representative to the investigation. Same with Boeing. So its accurate when the article, as currently, states "...TWA chief 747 pilot Robert Terrell Stacey, who was participating in the official investigation as a TWA representative..." All those other recent edits have been inaccurate and misleading. The sticking into the lede of both articles what is a made-for-profit yet-to-be-aired TV show isn't encyclopedic and gives undue weight to "news" and "recentism". 76.254.55.239 (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radar section

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)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INERT/DUD missile impact theory

I posted this in the discussion for the original talk page for TWA800 but it was removed. The NTSB admitted the possibility of a non-detonated missile impact, which would corroborate the many credible witnesses' statements, and explain the RDX and other odd checmical compounds found onboard, and also the hole in the fuselage where the metal bends inwards. The NTSB went on to state something to the effect of "further testing would be required".

Does anyone else know anything about this?174.0.57.37 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theories&oldid=797039872"