Talk:Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories/Archive 2

Disputed tag comments

 * I appreciate your effort, however copying articles here doesn't help the verifiability of the section any. Please provide the *links* to the sources in the body of the section itself, either as footnotes or inline ext links. --Bk0 (Talk) 22:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The links you require are under the heading References. I have just added a Guardian reference and removed the tabloid ending that you objected to. You should bear in mind that this is one of the seven theories. Are you applying your seemingly strict criteria to the other six? If not, I think you should now remove the disputed tag from the "South-West Africa (Namibia)" theory.Phase1 23:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll remove the tag, although the section still could use some work. As far as the other theories go, if they are as poorly referenced as this one used to be, they should be fixed as well. If you're implying that I have some sort of pro-South African POV, well, that's quite incorrect. assume good faith. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Bk0: no offence intended.Phase1 00:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The disintegration of the plane
Some theories concentrate on the break-up of the plane as opposed to the actual bombing. It has been suggested that the bomb didn't have the power to cause that amount of damage, and that it was excessive amounts of corrosion and fatigue that led to the huge scale of damage.Luke7305 21:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Maid of the Seas" was certainly one of the early versions of the Boeing 747, but no-one has seriously suggested that metal fatigue brought the aircraft down upon Lockerbie. If there are in fact theories about the crash being caused by something other than an IED, then they should be outlined in this "Alternative theories" article.Phase4 22:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)