[DiogenesLamp]

At the time, a manpad missile made the most sense. The thinking was anything else would have been too big to get to the coast. The FBI did dredge for parts of a Stinger or similar type of weapon around the crash site and found nothing.

They say they found nothing. I've read some of Jack Cashill's articles on the subject. He goes into quite a lot of detail about what sort of missile was probably used.

I have no information on what sort of missile was used. I only have information that demonstrates some sort of missile was used.

Lets say Iran built a specialized missile launcher for sneak attacks and mounted it on a converted ship. At no time over the last twenty years has anyone suspected the use of such a weapon in any of the airliner crashes since.

The information I have says rogue elements of Iran's military. Iran disavowed any involvement. Of course the way Iran behaves, who can say what is true about whether this mission had official sanction?

[Widget Jr]

IIRC, Cashill said the USN shot down TWA 800, probably in a test by a submarine launched missile. You've also said information you can't talk about shows the Iranians did it. I've argued that given the type of Manpad missiles available at the time, or how a larger missile would have to have been employed, a terrorist missile is not likely. ETCS and GreyHoundSailor have pointed out that Navy procedures mean that a accidental shoot down by the Navy using a live warhead is impossible.

Which is it, the Navy or the Iranians? What is your information on what type of missile was used? How was the attack carried out? If actually carrying out a attack is more unlikely than a accident, the missile theory doesn't hold up, ergo, a accidental becomes the best explanation.