Well, I guess I let a little sarcasm slip in there. Sorry.
But there really has been a lot of research on this and a lot of it has been put up right here on FR. There is a plethora of eye witness testimony, and a lot of it is very VERY credible, and not only from folks on the beach, but from pilots in the area. There is at least one National Guard pilot who SAW the missile impact.
There is the whole issue of the forensic evidence of shrapnel fragments removed from bodies that has not only disappeared, but all the records of the forensic examination of the metal fragments has disappeared. This evidence could really lay to rest the issue of a missile because the evidence would indicate explosive velocity and residues.
If there was no missle, this is the evidence that would prove it. So, where is it? Freedom of Information requests seem to be stonewalled.
Link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664122/posts
Is the case for a missle shootdown "open and shut". No. I agree with you on that. But the governments official fuel tank explosion is no slam dunk either.
In fact, the preponderance of the evidence actually available to the public tends very strongly to support the mssile scenario.
Then there is all the evidence uncovered by Jack Cashill and others, like Bill and Bob Donaldson. It keeps piling up.
Use the search engine. It will lead you to a fascinating story.
Thanks, and thanks for the apology.
I will check out the link. Like I say, I don't pretend to have any certainty on either side of this. I'm open to all new information and will gladly read the source you provided.
Interesting read. I'm not sure it adds much though either way. The FBI needs to release its findings and put this to rest. I don't think the fact that they haven't indicates anything more than the usual bureacratic obsession with turf and secrecy. Like with the JFK assassination, keeping investigative findings under wraps just leads to conspiracy notions most often that prove baseless. For that reason, the FBI just needs to release what it has one way or another and if they too conclude nothing amiss then all the more reason to get the information out.
One question enters my mind as I read this though. Louis Freeh was no friend of the Clinton administration and freely critiqued Clinton's security stewardship during the 90s in his book last year. I wonder what he says about TWA 800 in his book. We know he didn't claim any cover up here or I think that would have made headlines. Why would he have not done so if there was one, especially if it was done as the piece above claims to protect Clinton in the 1996 elections? I think Freeh would gladly have let the cat out of the bag on that one.
Anyway, just a thought I had as I read this. The mystery continues I suppose. I still lean to the fuel tank theory, though I'm open to any contrary information that arises.