1. You obviously didn't read the witness reports very closely.
2. The "zoom-climb" is impossible without a nose. The center-of-gravity would shift instantly WAAAY aft in the plane. The new "nose" of the aircraft would then act like a parachute. The plane would instantly (within mere seconds) drop the tail. But, once the wings got to the stall point, the tail would continue to drop. I've read the reports from aviation people. Even Boeing said the "zoom-climb" is not supported by ANY of their data.
3. http://twa800.com/pages/fuel.htm
100%
Actually, I obviously read them more closely than you. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making false claims about them. Here's some info from the site you linked...Of 755 witnesses, 183 said they saw a "streak of light". Of those 183, 102 gave a source of origin. Of those, 96 said it originated from the surface. Of those, only 40 said it originated from the sea. So only 40 of 755 witnesses describe a streak of light rising from the ocean. That's not "over 100 witnesses," making "almost identical descriptions of a surface to air missle launch". That's about 5% saying they saw a streak of light. The rest gave every other imaginable description of a single event resulting in such a confused picture that taken as a whole, the eyewitness testimony was determined to be largely useless by the various organizations investigating the incident.
"2. The "zoom-climb" is impossible without a nose."
Reread your own description of the events. The CG slips aft. The tail goes down (the aircraft begins a climb). Until the wings stall (within mere seconds) they create lift. The increased lift combined with decreased weight causes the aircraft to climb. Which it does. For a net increase of about 1200 ft. The incorrect assumption made by many "experts" often quoted from the internet, is that with an aircraft the size of a 747, any major change in angle of attack (ie. stalling) could happen "instantly". The fuselage of the 747 is not built to take that kind of loading, and it would disintegrate. Based on the pattern of debris found on the ocean floor, TWA 800 did not start to break up until well into the sequence of events following the initial explosion. Another false assumption is that if an aircraft "stalls" it immediately falls from the sky. Any object can "fly" a ballistic trajectory. Unless TWA 800 lost all its kenetic energy at the moment of explosion (an event that would have pulverized it and everything in it) it "flew" the remainder of the ballistic arc it started before its wings stalled. And as long as we're discussing Boeing, they fully concurred with the break up sequence as described in the NTSB report.
"3."
You're kidding right? Some guy cooking Jet A in a crab pot over a propane burner is supposed to convince me that Jet A flammability tests from Boeing, California Institute of Technology, Southwest Research Institute, FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center, The University of Nevada at Reno, Arizona State University, and the U.S. Air Force are all a lie? Nice try.
Sorry, but you never left 25%.