Your point is pointless. The radar "sight" horizon of the Islip primary radar at the distance where TWA-800 splashed in was a mere 29 feet above sea level... hardly significant. The aircraft would have fallen that distance in ~7/100ths of a second at its terminal velocity of about 450 feet per second.
Secondly, the radar gain is set to detect massive aircraft, not spinning parts, so it is quite likely that many of the pieces were simply not returning an adequate amplitude to be processed.
The main body of the aircraft was still intact at splash in... it apparently was minus its left wing but the fuselage was certainly big enough to provide an adequate radar return.
To use a lack of information as proof, when it comes from a system not capable of providing such information is guaranteed to produce an erred analysis.
You are the one who claims the Islip Primary Radar is incapable of providing such information... the NTSB relied on it. I think it is accurate enough.
That whole statement is flawed. It appears to be the creation of parsed facts, imagined events, with a big dose of flawed data points.
I am providing detailed analysis and you are dismissing it out of hand... name the "parsed facts," specify the "imagined events," and detail exactly what are "flawed" about the data points.
But please explain why you put so much stock in whether the climb was 3000 or 1500 feet, and why the conspirators would create a false climb to begin with?
I put so much stock in whether the climb was 3000 or 1500 feet because those are the gains in altitude claimed first by the CIA cartoon and the latter by the NTSB cartoon.
As to why, both the CIA and the NTSB trotted out their cartoons to impeach the eyewitnesses who said they variously saw something climb to the plane and hit it. They used the cartoons to impeach the witnesses by claiming it was proof that what they saw was the crippled nose-less plane zoom climbing, trailing burning fuel. If the zoom climb did not occur then the eyewitnesses are not impeached.
The math, the physics, says that a nose-less, powerless (engines at idle) aircraft can only use the lift of its primary wing to convert its forward momentum into altitude. The CIA cartoon claimed 3200 feet of altitude gain... but to do that, 100% of the horizontally vectored forward momentum carried by the aircraft would have been required to have been instantly rotated 90º with 100% efficiency. It also means that ALL FORWARD MOTION ceased instantly and was converted into UPWARD MOTION. That is not physically possible.
Once physicists and mathematicians started criticizing the CIA's cartoon, the NTSB created another one... this time claiming only a 1500-1600 foot gain in altitude which would convert only about 75% of the forward momentum into altitude gain... but they are still faced with the math of the fall... and where it landed. To get the crippled aircraft from the loss of power point, and loss of lift point, to splash in requires the expenditure of its forward momentum which is drained away by the force of atmospheric drag... and if 75% of its forward momentum was used to climb 1500 feet, there isn't enough left to get it 2.5 - 2.7 nautical miles from where the event started. Its more plausible... but not much.
Then there is the issue of time... it takes TIME to climb and TIME to fall back down to the starting altitude... If the climb is unpowered, which this one was, then the time to climb and the time to fall are equal (drag may effect this, depending on the aircraft's presentation to the direction of climb or fall). The forces that slows and eventually stops the climb, gravity (plus drag for slowing), is the same force that starts the fall and it is applied over equal time. As I have said repeatedly, WE KNOW when the series of events started... sometime after the last transponder return. WE KNOW when the main body of the wreckage did not return any more radar echos... so we have a window of time in which all of the events from start to splash in had to have occurred. To sustain a 3200 foot climb, we have to add much more time to account for that climb. There isn't room in the approximately 38-41 seconds between event A, the last transponder return, and event B, the last radar echo before splash down.
If we DO add the time for the climb and subsequent fall back to altitude, and accept the observed time available, we have to add SPEED... and then we have to ask where did the added horizontally vectored speed came from... and then we have to ask why the primary radar return locations do not reflect that required increase in speed.
Similarly, if we accept the Zoom climb, which draws its power from the forward momentum (essentially mass times velocity squared) the speed of forward movement would have to drastically decline... but the positions of the radar returns at fixed intervals of time show NO SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION in the distance covered in the first two post initiating event returns, the time when the zoom climb was claimed to have occurred... ergo, no exchange of forward momentum for altitude during the required time... thus no Zoom climb.
They relied on everything available. That's a far cry from taking innaccurate data points and connecting them to prove a conspiracy. As for the radar, what was the ducting condition at that moment? What was the gain setting? What is the RCS of a vertical airliner missing a wing at various aspects? But these things you don't question.
As to why, both the CIA and the NTSB trotted out their cartoons to impeach the eyewitnesses who said they variously saw something climb to the plane and hit it. They used the cartoons to impeach the witnesses by claiming it was proof that what they saw was the crippled nose-less plane zoom climbing, trailing burning fuel. If the zoom climb did not occur then the eyewitnesses are not impeached.
So your problem is that they actually listened to eye witnesses and made an attempt to correlate their testimoney to the facts? OK. Its quite possible that the eye witnesses were wrong, they often are, and that the government was also wrong. Even if you had credible evidence that no climb occurred, it proves nothing in regard to a missile. As for the zoom climb "discrediting" the witnesses, that's nonsense. Accident investigations put together pieces of the puzzle, they don't "discredit" facts. The witnesses seeing a missile is NOT a fact, that they claim to have seen a light show that they (having never seen a missile) took to be a missile, is a fact.
To put an extreme damper on your conspiracy theory, SAMs do not burn all the way to target. Unless you are insisting that it was a long range SAM like an SM2 or SA-20, the rocket motor accelerates the missile to speed and burns out in seconds. SAMs that fit into the plausible category, make a big flash at launch and would be invisible at night through the rest of their flight.
Also your "engines at idle" assertion is just that, an assertion. So Boeing designs the engines to go to idle if input is interrupted, so? I'm always fascinated at the parsing of conspirists over what can't be believed and what can't be challenged. You can't fathom that the engines could have stayed at full power because it doesn't fit your template.