[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.

[tpaine]

At 242 Hal opines:

"-- Yet, most of witnesses appear to have seen the fiery streak only moments before the huge fireball explosion --"

I replied:
So? --- Obviously, you think you've made a [factual] point, but what is it? [ as opinions are not facts]

No one can be as obtuse to logic as you pretend to be.
[speak for yourself s-man]

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.

Big "IF"... Or is that fact to obtuse for you to understand?

[Hal1950]

"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."

Correct. Put another way, the "streak" was fire in the (by then) rapidly descending wreckage of TWA Flight 800 and was the ignition source of the huge fireball.