[RayChuang88]

Why are we still doing beating a dead horse on this subject?

The reason is simple: did the investigators find the blast pattern and remains of a MANPAD warhead anywhere on the plane? Given that each type of MANPAD has a distinct warhead detonation pattern (whether it's Stinger, SA-7, SA-18, Blowpipe, etc.), the fact that NONE of these blast patterns--let alone the explosive residue from the warhead itself--was found on the remains of TWA 800 rules out a missile attack.

[DJ MacWoW]

the fact that NONE of these blast patterns--let alone the explosive residue from the warhead itself--was found on the remains of TWA 800 rules out a missile attack.

If they are covering up what happened, you expect them to say otherwise?!

[frogjerk]

The reason is simple: did the investigators find the blast pattern and remains of a MANPAD warhead anywhere on the plane? Given that each type of MANPAD has a distinct warhead detonation pattern (whether it's Stinger, SA-7, SA-18, Blowpipe, etc.), the fact that NONE of these blast patterns--let alone the explosive residue from the warhead itself--was found on the remains of TWA 800 rules out a missile attack.

This is why I am skeptical of the missile theory.

[fso301]

The reason is simple: did the investigators find the blast pattern and remains of a MANPAD warhead anywhere on the plane? Given that each type of MANPAD has a distinct warhead detonation pattern (whether it's Stinger, SA-7, SA-18, Blowpipe, etc.), the fact that NONE of these blast patterns--let alone the explosive residue from the warhead itself--was found on the remains of TWA 800 rules out a missile attack.

An egg sized incendiary device dropped into the fuel tank by a fuel loader could explain the lack of evidence. The fuel acted as a solvent that slowly dissolved a barrier in the incediary device. Once dissolved, the device would ignite.

[cpdiii]

the fact that NONE of these blast patterns--let alone the explosive residue from the warhead itself--was found on the remains of TWA 800 rules out a missile attack.

An individual was arrested for removing some fabric from the aircraft that had a residue on it that would be consistent with the solid state fuel on a SAM. He turned it over to an outside investigator. That was when the government went into overdrive and said that this aircraft had been used in St Louis to test bomb sniffing dogs and this was residue from the exercise.

[Alberta's Child]

The credible explanation I've seen -- for a missile attack scenario, that is -- is that the missile in question was not one of the heat-seeking surface-to-air missiles in use at the time, but was probably what is called a "rolling-airframe missile." Instead of downing an aircraft by homing in on the thermal emissions from an engine, this type of missile is basically a modern, high-tech version of an old flak shell. The missile tracks its target by homing in on its radio transmissions, then explodes in the vicinity of the aircraft and shreds its outer skin and structural members with "shrapnel" from its warhead comprised of tiny tungsten-carbide cubes.

This, in fact, is one of the things that would weigh towards an accidental shoot-down by a naval vessel conducting exercises off the south shore of Long Island that evening.