So what is this aircraft shown? I could be wrong? I find it odd that nowhere in the article is it mentioned that an identical , owned by the Iranian military, also blew up in midair some years prior to TWA In a Pulitzer prize-winning article here , Seattle Times reporter Byron Acohido explains that as a result of the Iranian Air Force disaster, Boeing "took steps" to make fuel tanks safer. Perhaps someone should insert something in the Wiki article to reflect this precedent.
I didn't remember this stuff and its kind of interesting but I am not sure its relevant enough for inclusion. The thrust reverser issue is mentioned in passing I think just because it was a branch of the fault tree that had to be examined ever since Lauda Air Flight and then dismissed. And when I searched for "volumetric shutoff" and "VSO" in the given reference the Final Report I didn't see that statement at all maybe the ref tag got messed up?
Just one opinion Was that geodata added to the article on , September 25, by The Anomebot2? Nose falling off? The fireball?
- Discovery Institute - Article Database.
- LÉcole : Urgence ! (- SDE) (French Edition);
The coordinates given as well as what they represent are dubious, no? I'll look some more at WP:GEO and see if there is a way to put a range in there, otherwise I think we are much better off with nothing rather than some arbitrary location for "where the crash occurred" LoveUxoxo talk , 7 April UTC. Put the geodata back in. Someone check my math. Sure I don't like doing business like this, but at least now there is a reason.
Tom Hull: Book Notes
What was in there before was less precise because it was "more precise". And believe me, nanotechnology like that Geobot is the doom of us all. It's got airplanes flying into state capitols in other crash articles not kidding. Thanks for putting up with me. Also I left a cite needed tag on the nationalities list. I'm not challenging it or anything, its probably accurate.
- [Deconstructing Obama] | dausoruroser.ml.
- Jack Cashill’s confirmation bias!
- Political Book Summaries;
- Near The Wild, Alaska Podcast!
But often with dual-nationalities and stuff, you can get different tallies. I looked only briefly for a source for a breakdown of victims by nationality and didn't find. It might be in one of our sources already, I don't remember. The Aftermath section is too short. The International Memorial's section would then be stuck with a 1 sentence 2nd paragraph.
The SoT just happened to be at the memorial. If positions of the sections were swapped And why would all the stuff presently in the Aftermath not be in the "in the media" section?
The internet does not count as "in the media? Due to the subject of the article, How many visitors a year does the International Memorial get? Does the Memorial charge a fee to visit, if so, where do the proceeds go? Why is there no mention of the students and teachers from Montoursville High School that died in this flight? Redundancy: twice mentions his novel. I mean, the super-detailed link does not go to the specific page of the pdf anyways; it adds nothing more than the simple pointer, and it makes editing the article a big mess for anyone who is not an expert in navigating references.
If the very instance is detailed, plus you have it in the external links and suggested reading, then al that is required by the manual of style is "NTSB FInal Report, op cit, page x. This way, there's only one actual reference "Final Report" and you only have to add the page number, and in the "References" section the NTSB final report only shows up once instead of times.
This is a far better way of doing things. Shelbystripes talk , 6 January UTC. I don't think it should be there, really just one sentence in the body as currently will suffice. It's a factoid that has very little utility, for instance, you could add to the lede of Air New Zealand Flight that it was the LEAST deadly regularly-scheduled passenger flight accident in Antarctica, ever, which is true.
Oh no, there's been an error
Anyway if you all feel the same maybe someone should revert that addition to this article. And yeah, don't add that to the Flight article. In section "In-flight breakup sequence and crippled flight" the two video links lead to "page not found". W1 m2 talk , 27 March UTC. Archive of the 'In the media' section of the article.
This is what should have been done instead of "boldly" deleting it.
In addition Tom Clancy uses this accident as the basis of something mentioned in the novel 'Shadow Watch' where the villains are discussing the testing of their prototype EMP weapon. American investigators attributed its explosion after takeoff due to a spark in the conductive wiring inside the center fuel tank. This was true. But the cause of the spark remained undetermined in official reports, and the abrupt retirement of a senior FBI official who publicly speculated that it might have been a microwave pulse was swept under the agency's very large carpet.
Shadow Watch, Penguin Books, , p. I've edited diff the intro from " TWA was the second-deadliest U. In my opinion, we provide better information if we just give the exact date of the change in status. If there was, feel free to revert my edit and or discuss if it makes sense changing to what it is now.
Flight numbers in general and commercial use are preceded by the two-character IATA airline designators - three-letter ICAO airline designators are used by traffic control and other aviation authorities. Mstuomel talk , 19 June UTC. I am a general reader, and, after re-reading, I'm still not sure what a knot radar track is. I'm guessing "military surface targets" means naval vessels, but I'm not sure why the word targets is in there:. The NTSB addressed allegations that the Islip radar data showed groups of military surface targets converging in a suspicious manner in an area around the accident, and that a knot radar track, never identified and 3 NM from the crash site, was involved in foul play, as evidenced by its failure to divert from its course and assist with the search and rescue operations.
Thank you for reading. This edit seems to be heading that way. I really don't know about the subject, so I'll let others handle it. Apparently Wikithunderbird talk , 13 July UTC are not required when editing an article and are used for convenience on a talk page like this. I assume that I need to be signed in now done so for the 30 days for my ID to appear. If not signed in then I guess the update still takes by without my ID. Is that correct? My basis is rigorous and I don't speculate on the causes of the tragedy. My goal is to explain such errors in a manner that someone such as yourself will be able to understand.
Please let me know if there is something unclear in my posts. Wikithunderbird talk , 13 July UTC. Even one SPOT is sufficient to contradict and falsify an erroneous premise or argument. Such falsifications can often occur in the context of Mathematical Proofs. In the current case the second paragraph of page 93 flatly states that, "In all three cases, the sequences of primary targets appeared with no radar track leading to them [ If there is some confusion over whether the accident aircraft has 3 windows on the upper deck or not, I believe this has to do with when the aircraft, owned by TWA but sold to the government of Iran, underwent modifications.
The sale was cancelled, and the aircraft returned to TWA with more windows. Could the pilot's mention of unusual fuel gauge readings be included a bit more prominently? It would make sense for this to be in either the "Accident flight" or the "Further investigation and analysis" sections. Fotoguzzi talk , 7 August UTC. The fact that all references to this have been removed from both this article and the Flight article suggests that somebody is trying to censor this information. Redhanker talk , 8 August UTC.
I seem to remember reading that a major Picasso painting was among the cargo destroyed in the crash. Does anyone else remember hearing anything like this? I'm trying to find out more about it. Roach, Mary I have just added archive links to one external link on TWA Flight Please take a moment to review my edit. I made the following changes:. When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. As of February , "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.
UC Berkeley Library
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. The content and tone of this TWA Flight page may break Wikipedia guidelines because it apparently does not maintain a neutral point of view NPOV and contains inaccuracies. I plan to correct the inaccuracies and other apparent violations on the page so that it adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines.
Below please find the problems I uncovered on a first read-through and the remedies I suggest for each. Please provide your feedback on my analyses and proposed remedies at your earliest convenience. Beyond military and other eyewitness who say they saw a missile their statements being evidence , the explosive traces discussed further along in this Wikipedia article , high-energy fractures, and inward penetrations are all evidence of a criminal act. Regardless of whether any official properly or improperly dismissed this evidence, they remain evidence of a criminal act.
And rather than point out this inaccurate statement early on in the Wikipedia article, which could require a longer explanation than is appropriate during an introduction section, it may be advisable to explain why the FBI dismissed this evidence and quickly provide information that challenges that dismissal. Whistle-blowers counter, saying that a proximty-fused missile could have been responsible, since it does not detonate on contact, but explodes a significant distance away from the jetliner, and therefore its destructive forces do not originate at any particular on board blast site.
Stalcup talk , 3 June UTC. While such theories always seem to accompany events like this, we must be careful to separate those who speculate wildly and may be considered conspiracy theorists and whistleblowers from the original investigation, who provide insightful analysis into problems with the official narrative and evidence in support of another.
This article effectively lumps them all together. This is disputed by several high-level members of the original investigation who point to evidence of an external blast, such as inward penetrations into the jetliner and explosives traces detected on wreckage items.