[OA5599]

But why would a stinger missile enter the fuselage? It’s a heat seeking missile, so I would think it would target an engine. And with the warhead forward of the rocket motor, wouldn’t the explosion blow the unused rocket fuel away from the plane and not inside and onto some seats?

Also, it only has a little over two pounds of explosives. I don’t think it would do such immediate catastrophic damage to a giant 747. Bet that big old beast would lumber on for quite some time.

[Alberta's Child]

If in fact it was missile that brought down TWA-800, the weapon in question was not necessarily a heat-seeking missile. More likely, it was a more advanced SAM that tracked the target's radio signature, not the heat from its engines. This weapon has a warhead packed with a heavy metal like tungsten carbide, and is designed to explode close to the target and shred the fuselage with shrapnel.

I'm not sure if this fits the damage pattern on the Flight 800 aircraft, but it does explain why an engine was not the primary point of contact.

[null and void]

True, a Stinger would target the engines. A radar guided foreign equivalent would go for the center of the radar reflection.

A smallish warhead designed to spread a cloud of shrapnel might not have enough energy to overcome the inertia of the main missile body still being driven forward.

Loads of fuel vapor from the fuel tank rupture in the event could easily cause the equivalent of a fuel-air explosive. Remember our first use of a FAE in Afghanistan? The Brits said ‘Those bloody Yanks just used a nuke!!!!’