![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
.............." 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)
Could someone tell me what happened to the section on "Missile theory" Arydberg ( talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/17/twa.flight.800/index.html?eref=sitesearchWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
In light of previous conversations of whether to rename the article to "Conspiracy Theories," I ask this: How is a meteorite, which Earth is struck by daily, hitting an aircraft a "conspiracy"? By... Who? What? The rock? I get that the theory is unlikely, but... it's also something that is a NATURAL PHENOMENON that has damaged and hit things before in the past. And it's not like anyone is suggesting a "cover up" by the government or something to prevent people from finding out rocks fall from the sky and might potentially hit something.
To say it's an alternate theory or an unlikely/improbable theory? Absolutely. But... no one is conspiring to make rocks fall from the sky. It happens. It's natural. 159.117.189.107 ( talk) 01:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Two rebuttals:
1. A mediocre strike is unlikely to occur on any aircraft in flight. The best estimate is that such an effect would happen at most in ~5000k years, provided that aviation continued to operate as similar level. 2. Even if there was a meteor strike (despite the negligible possibilities), the report noted there was no evidence of an impact.
I wouldn't be opposed to moving this theory to the man in article as long as the information matches facts from mainstream sources. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 09:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 September 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
.............." 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)
Could someone tell me what happened to the section on "Missile theory" Arydberg ( talk) 16:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/17/twa.flight.800/index.html?eref=sitesearchWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
In light of previous conversations of whether to rename the article to "Conspiracy Theories," I ask this: How is a meteorite, which Earth is struck by daily, hitting an aircraft a "conspiracy"? By... Who? What? The rock? I get that the theory is unlikely, but... it's also something that is a NATURAL PHENOMENON that has damaged and hit things before in the past. And it's not like anyone is suggesting a "cover up" by the government or something to prevent people from finding out rocks fall from the sky and might potentially hit something.
To say it's an alternate theory or an unlikely/improbable theory? Absolutely. But... no one is conspiring to make rocks fall from the sky. It happens. It's natural. 159.117.189.107 ( talk) 01:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Two rebuttals:
1. A mediocre strike is unlikely to occur on any aircraft in flight. The best estimate is that such an effect would happen at most in ~5000k years, provided that aviation continued to operate as similar level. 2. Even if there was a meteor strike (despite the negligible possibilities), the report noted there was no evidence of an impact.
I wouldn't be opposed to moving this theory to the man in article as long as the information matches facts from mainstream sources. — BillHPike ( talk, contribs) 09:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
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)