That said, a Stinger could not have done it, period.
Second, there is a big difference between a bomb and a missile, and there is no evidence whatsoever of bomb-type damage. They reconstructed 90+% of the airplane, and what they reconstructed is simply too much for a bomb, especially in the sections in question.
Third, the "red residue" is not evidence of an explosive missile. It is consistent with seat glues and other superheated fabric residues----BUT say for a moment it WAS somehow related to the exhaust of a rocket motor, the only thing you could possibly have was a "pass through" missile or a "kinetic-kill" missile---not an explosive missile. This is a crucial distinction that the Cashills and Sanders types obscure.
No terrorist, EVER, has EVER used a "pass through" device as an anti-aircraft weapon: it would not occur to them it they were trying to blow up a plane, because aircraft can survive and even land with holes in them, even fairly large holes. The only way to ensure destruction is through an explosive device.
AQ was working on bombs. Get it? BOMBS, not missiles. There is no record in Lance's book, or Minitier's research, or Posner's research on AQ of them EVER, and I repeat, EVER obtaining a super-high-cost and high-technology "signature-seeking" (note, not HEAT SEAKING because it didn't go for the engines) missile. If you follow what type of weapon "could have" done this, you must rule out terrorists.
That leaves only an accidental/deliberate Navy launch. As DeMille concludes in his (fiction) book, it is simply impossible to keep hundreds, even thousands, of Navy personnel quiet on such an issue if such an accident occurred, and even more so if it was deliberate.
I highly recommend DeMille's book for the thought processes he goes through. He has done his research, even though it's "fiction."
Finally, the "streak of light" could not possibly have been a "particle beam" weapon (which DeMille SEEMS to be leaning to, even though . . . well, I won't give away the plot) because according to some witnesses it "maneuvered." So we are back to a very specific "pass-through" kinetic-energy missile that was NOT heat seeking, which AQ had no record of ever obtaining; which AQ had no history of ever using; which did NOT fit the AQ profile in ANY of their other operations; and which in NO WAY would have provided the warm up for the Bojinka or 9/11 plots.
We have 200+ eyewitnesses. What did they see? Something. I grant you, they weren't all wrong. I doubt it was falling debris. But the reconstructed aircraft doesn't lie: it rules out a bomb; it rules out a Stinger; it rules out any heat-seeker; it rules out any explosive missile. This is a classic case of the forensic evidence being directly contradictory to the eyewitness "evidence."
Some are having a love affair with Bill Cosby. He is a democrat. He needs to examine the role of his party. Enough said.
How can he be so passionate about his issues, yet support the party that is responsible. Think about it Bill, you need to expose the failure of the education and wefare system. If he really does care, he should be supporting the voucher system. But he can't do that, after all, it is a Republican idea. I applaud the fact that he is speaking out. Yet, most of his listeners support the very party that should be held responsible.
Yours was a great post on DeMille's book !
Let's say I concede to the fact that since AQ had never, ever obtained or used a signature seeking missile, they did not procure their first one for the downing of TWA800. Do you have any idea what Saddam's track record was with respect to this type of missile? I wonder who does have an inventory of signature seekers - could be an entity involved in the Oil for Food fiasco.