Replies

If you can provide the full title, I will try to look it up.

First, not all witnesses claim a missile strike. TWA 800 was roughly ten miles offshore, at 13,000 to 14,000 feet up when it exploded. The time was around 8:30 pm, scattered clouds, and dusk lighting.

My issue with the missile theories is no one can clearly identify what type of missile, how it could have been employed, or if seeing what was claimed was actually possible for many of the eye witnesses.

From what numbers I can find the Stinger missile motor burns for 3-4 seconds, and would be at most 5,000 feet up before the motor burns out. Witnesses reported seeing a missile powered all the way to impact. That rules out Stingers and Strelas.
Stingers and Strelas have lousy combat performance. After the motor burns out, the missile is losing energy, and the missile seeker is running out of coolant the entire time. For a Stinger type weapon to even hit TWA-800 is unlikely, and would be a poor choice to fire just one missile. When the manufacture of a weapon talks about it's 90-plus-% success rate in testing and practice firings, it is guaranteed to not have that when used for real.
Bigger surface to air missiles uses command link, semi-active or active radar homing. That means tracking and guidance radars. A Roland, SA-8/9K33 Osa, or larger launcher is going to look really suspicious sitting on a barge right off the U.S. Coast.
The USN doesn't test surface to air missiles right below air traffic corridors, and USN SAMs used in testing are know to use range safety self destruct packages.
For what is claimed about a missile, a FFG-7 Perry or CG-47 Ticonderoga would have had to have been with a few miles of where TWA-800 went down, and no such ship was seen at the time.
There is the limit of human vision, which on average is .0003 radian. At at least 10 miles distance, a single stage Standard or Patriot is too small to see directly. Some witness claim to have seen a missile over 20 miles away.
Dusk lighting, distance, and background mean even the missile's smoke trail would be really hard to see.

Short version:

Small missiles do not have the performance described.
Big missiles could not hide their launchers.
In all cases, any type of missile at the minimum possible distance to shore of ~10 miles, at dusk, would be nearly impossible to see and identify.

Airliner fuel tank explosions have happened. In a eleven year period, there were three, two definite and TWA-800 (Safety in Avionics: Time to Stop Fuel Tank Explosions)
May 11, 1990, Philippine Airlines Flight 143 had a center fuel tank explosion while on the ground in Manila.
March 3, 2001, Thai Airways International Flight 114 was destroyed by a center fuel tank explosion while parked at the gate in Bangkok.

For TWA-800, the official explanation of the fuel tank explosion exists, because it was recorded on the flight recorder that the pilot was saying that the fuel quantity system was giving crazy readings two and half minutes before the explosion. When the tank was recovered, wiring in the tank showed signs of arcing. In the official explanation's favor, there were two definite center tank explosion, and TWA-800. For the reasons I've explained, the missile theories have larger problems then the official explanation.

Now, I am only asking what I think are reasonable questions, and am not claiming any expertise. So if anyone can point out my mistakes (the close I get to bedtime, the more mistakes I post) to reasonable counter explanations, including Phd Physics papers (where I read the beginning and end and skip the calculus and Latin in the middle), please point me in a direction to look.

Thank you. I only wish I could engage you more, but I can’t. The newsletters from AIM were from the late 90’s,probably 1996, 7 or 8. I’m thinking ‘97.

Dang, I just wasted 15 minutes thinking this was truly a govt. cover up. Thanks for the reasoned response. Although, I believe our government is capable of anything at this point. Ron Brown agrees.