>>A missile system like the SA-6 is not composed of a single, autonomous vehicle.<<
Right, two autonomous vehicles, connected by a single cable or data link. If a battery can "relocate to an alternate firing position in approximately 15 minutes", set-up can't be too complex. Iran's military has employed the SA-6 for quite some time, so skilled operators or training would not be a problem.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-6.htm
>>...if a SAM had been responsible for the downing of TWA 800, the evidence would have been obvious and undeniable. Even the smallest SAM warheads are designed to direct thousands of fragments into the targeted aircraft with the hope of puncturing some vital system.<<
True. If all the sheet metal in the aircraft's vital areas, such as the fuel tank, had been recovered and was available for independent inspection, I might be looking at alternate explanations as well.
bump
If it could be done, it would be. There are small navy's all over the world (like Iran) that would love to have shipborne, radar guided SAM systems. Many of them operate systems like the SA-6 from the ground. Don't you think that if you could just bolt one to a ship and employ it, they would?
"If all the sheet metal in the aircraft's vital areas, such as the fuel tank, had been recovered and was available for independent inspection"
98% of the aircraft was recovered. I'm sure you aren't really going to argue that all the fragments of an exploding SAM warhead managed to limit themselves to the 2% that wasn't. Considering NO agency (including Boeing, TWA, ALPA, IAMS, FBI etc) could find any tangible evidence missile or bomb fragments hit any part of the aircraft, I'd say it's a safe bet that none did.