Yes. Just because it’s rare, doesn’t mean it can’t happen. I understand that since Clintoon was President, there was no trust in the investigation, but witnesses claiming to see a shoulder fired missile rising but not the 747 it was “flying towards” always struck me as a little strange. Besides that, if the Navy had shot it down, the taxpayer would have paid out, not the government.
Here is my memory of the “Mayday” documentary (my apologies for any errors/omissions due to faulty memory, I don’t have time to research this to check):
It was a hot day - very hot (87?).
So the plane’s air conditioning was on to ensure passenger/crew comfort.
There was a long delay in take-off (due to - wrongly - believed unaccompanied baggage).
So the air-conditioning was on for a long time.
The air conditioning cooled the interior of the plane, but the mechanism gets hot - very hot.
The mechanism was next to the fuel tanks.
So the fuel got very hot.
Fuel, in liquid form, is not flammable.
But the vapor is.
And the temperature rose high enough for it to vaporize (ignition point 96?).
It was now flammable and dangerous.
Aircraft use electricity for many things.
This electricity is carried through the plane by cables - many cables.
These cables were together at some point.
Some of those cables carried a high voltage (350?)
The plane was old.
So some parts were wearing out.
In particular, the insulation of some cables was wearing thin.
This and the high voltage permitted a short circuit.
This caused a spark in the fuel tank.
This spark ignited the fuel, causing an explosion.
The tanks were designed/built to withstand an explosion.
But only an explosion up to 20psi (?).
This explosion was more severe (?40psi).
So the tank burst.
This explosion caused the plane to split in two.
Momentum caused the front part to continue flying upward for a while.
And it was on fire.
This caused onlookers to think they saw a missile flying towards the plane.
The alternative (missile) theory was also investigated and rejected, but I don’t remember the details so well, and it has been debunked here (post #64).
There were traces of explosive found on the wreckage. It was surmised that this came from the shoes (?) of the military personnel who had retrieved (inspected?) the wreckage.
The NTSB was critical of the FBI, basically accusing them of a rush to judgment.
I’d have thought that the damage evident by just looking at the rebuilt plane would show clearly whether the force came from within the plane or from without - even to an untrained eye.