I’ve have been an aviation enthusiast for 40+ years and have worked in the industry for nearly 25 years after attending an Aviation only university and gradutaing with and an engineering degree with a focus on aircraft structures AND Nobody hates J. Gorelick more than me.
This looks to me like a center fuel tank issue and NOT a missile. I’m familiar with the 747 systems, the JT9D engines and aerodynamics of a damaged 747 having built and flown radio controlled versions with 4 ducted fans and having had a 3 hour guided tour of the JAL 123 Museum and EVERYTHING I have read in the official story about the flight path post explosion is plausible and mid air fuel tank explosions have taken out similar planes, very possibly including the SISTER plane to the 747 that was TWA800, back in the 1970’s.
I’m just saying....
LOL
>> “This looks to me like a center fuel tank issue and NOT a missile.” <<
.
Total nonsense!
Jet fuel cannot be made to explode with that much force because it has to be heated close to its ignition point to even vaporize. Anyone that has used kerosene lanterns knows how difficult it is to use them in cool weather, and jet fuel is engineered to be less volatile than K-1 kero.
You make a fool of yourself.
Flying your ‘credentials’ here as you have gives you away completely.
” mid air fuel tank explosions have taken out similar planes, very possibly including the SISTER plane to the 747 that was TWA800, back in the 1970’s.”
On the ground, right? Not at 13,000 feet in cold air.
A radio controlled version of an airplane is no where near the actual design of a real airplane. Not even close. The GC, alone, is different. Only a non-engineer with no knowledge of aerospace would even suggest such a thing as you did. That is completely childish.