It was too high for a MANPAD and the damage was in the wrong area for an IR missile anyway. Additionally, too much damage was done for the typical MANPAD warhead.
Good questions. The FBI/FAA investigation only released radar data showing ship traffic within a five or 10 mile radius of the explosion. I can't remember the radius, however, all of the ships shown on the radar -- about seven of them -- were accounted for. Non-government investigators looked at a five or 10 mile larger radius radar pic and found dozens of unaccounted for vessels. So the missile could've been something larger than a MANPAD, launched from a ship. That would answer your questions about altitude and amount of damage.
As to your question about where the damage occured, I've read that Soviet heat seeking missiles are programmed to turn 90 degrees towards the heat source if they overtake it and detonate on impact/proximity, giving them a second chance. That may or may not be true, but, it makes a lot of sense when you consider how many U.S. air-to-air missiles used in Vietnam simply flew by their targets when they lost track.
A 3,000 ft. zoom climb, wings level, with no pilot, no autopilot, jammed hydraulics, streaming burning fuel from a gaping, assymetrical opening...
I just can't believe that.
Where did this radar data come from?
Get one of the flight simulators such as MSFS or X-Plane. Take an 747 at the same speed that 800 was going, shut the engines off, give it full aft trim, and it will climb over 3000 feet, then stalls out and falls like a rock. These simulators are at least 90% accurate.
Not really. A larger missile requires a larger vessel and a complete weapons system. What are you suggesting? An SA-2 on a merchant? That would be a big trick for taking down a single airliner. Why come all the way across the Atlantic to do that when jet routes criss cross the globe? And why the government cover up? As such a missile would be easy to determine? As to your question about where the damage occurred, I've read that Soviet heat seeking missiles are programmed to turn 90 degrees towards the heat source if they overtake it and detonate on impact/proximity, giving them a second chance.
No. Some of them are designed to lead the heat source just before impact. A fuselage hit on an airliner would not occur unless the APU were running, and there is no APU near the area of the damage. MANPADS actually don't work too well against airliners. In all likelihood a 747 would simply lose one engine to such a missile.
A 3,000 ft. zoom climb, wings level, with no pilot, no autopilot, jammed hydraulics, streaming burning fuel from a gaping, assymetrical opening...
At 550 mph that 3000 foot "zoom climb" takes all of 7 seconds. I don't find that strange. A damaged aircraft can do many things. I once watched an E-2C with a cockpit fire (burned through the control cables) porpoise wildly, wings level until it impacted the water.
“I just can’t believe that.” Neither can I.