...as being contaminated from a dog handling exercise done 10 June 1996 in St. Louis when no written record of such training exists You don't believe an interview with the officer who conducted the exercise can be considered sufficient?
Why would the FBI find the recollection of the dog trainer credible.... Because the manner in which bomb training exercises are conducted explains very well how different types of explosive could be dispersed throughout an aircraft without leaving any signs of an explosion. Despite his inability to recall with complete precision his exercise on 10 June, he has conducted countless similar exercises and knows exactly what he is talking about. His testimony about the nature of his exercise matters more than the timing of it. Especially considering the length of time evidence of the explosives can remain in an aircraft once they've been deposited there. If this were the only bomb sniffing exercise to be carried out in 1996, than maybe his recollection of the timing of his exercise would be more relevant, but with several thousands of these exercises being conducted annually, I think there is a very good chance that the TWA 800 aircraft experienced just what he described at some point in its career.
I don't believe I've ever said your questions have no merit. Now you are the one leaping to conclusions. In fact, I complimented you for the civil nature in which you asked them.