[tpaine]

So? --- Obviously, you think you've made a point, but what is it?
Are you trying to claim that what the pilots saw at 7,000 ft somehow ~proves~ that the taped 'streak of light', as seen by hundreds of other eyewitnesses, did not happen?

I see no such proof from the pilots credible eywitness testimony; -- in fact, it makes the incident even more complicated. -- Did the Report address or explain their 7000' explosion?

[SampleMan]

So? --- Obviously, you think you've made a point, but what is it?

No one can be as obtuse to logic as you pretend to be.

The obvious point is that if the supposed streak of light occurred after the aircraft had already been stricken and descended 6000 ft, it could not have be the culprit.