[Rokke]

I've got nothing against Army Nurses (or any nurses for that matter). But as a self righteous pilot, it probably would not be appropriate for me to tell an Army nurse the best way to tell a gunshot wound from a shrapnel wound.

Since you are a pilot, you should understand my initial argument with the theory presented in this article. If there was rocket fuel residue on aircraft seats than the following must be true 1. the rocket motor was still burning when the missile impacted the aircraft, 2. There is almost no evidence that describes the VERY noticeable and memorable smoke trail of every Navy SAM employed by our Navy and therefore the motor must have been smokeless. 3. The warhead did not function. 4. the missile must have struck the aircraft in an almost perpendicular flightpath. I repeat, show me a missile that meets those criteria, and all consider this article something other than Cashill's continued effort to line his wallet with money made from a tragedy.

[rconawa]

"1. the rocket motor was still burning when the missile impacted the aircraft, 2. There is almost no evidence that describes the VERY noticeable and memorable smoke trail of every Navy SAM employed by our Navy and therefore the motor must have been smokeless. 3. The warhead did not function. 4. the missile must have struck the aircraft in an almost perpendicular flightpath."

First of all I am not following which ever person you are referring to. As for your issues: 1) Highly likely given range of missiles that could have been used and the altitude of the aircraft that the motor was still burning when it hit (even without that there would still be residue), 2) at night the smoke trail would not have been as noticable (but I concede this point more towards your argument - but not entirely), 3) The warhead did not malfuntion and since it worked as advertised it most likely was the cause of the center fuel tank explosion, 4) the perpendicular flight issue I fail to understand why you think it had to be near perpendicular, from the photo's and the eyewitness accounts the plane was struck from the bottom near center of mass with an object travelling at a high rate up speed upward - again very consistent with the path a radar guided missile would take if fired from a surface ship at an overhead target. Early reports did mention the solid rocket motor residue and then went quiet on that subject (if I remember right, some people changed at that time too)