And I can't believe you came back. You were the guy who said way back in post #310 "Ouch! That sound you hear is Rokke's credibility flying out the window." and then when I asked you to explain you refused. I'm still waiting for you to explain what about the Iranian 747 explosion discredits anything I've said.
"Tell me, did Algore's movie clarify global warming for you?"
I haven't seen it, but from what I understand of it, it is full of exactly the same kind of unsubstantiated rumor and theory that makes up all the TWA 800 conspiracy stories. I prefer fact over fantasy.
I've have question for you, Flight 800 was used for medium loaded short hops, I beleive, and, because it is easier on the spars and airframe, no fuel is carried in the CFT.
This was summer, and many hours of prolonged ground running of the AC packs (below the CFT)had been logged.
Airline records should show when the aircraft last received fuel in that CFT.
The Caltech Explosive research points out high temperatures and CONSIDERABLE vaporizing of the JET A, both ON THE GROUND and ALOFT.
Do you (as I do ) find it could be feasable that ALL the residual fuel in the CFT could have boiled off prior to the incident?
Additionally, what evidence is there that it exploded, an FBI deputy was witnessed at Calverton hammering on 800's sheet metal, changing the contours.
The NTSB breakup analysis describes failure and rolling forward of span wise beams, how does this virtual cannon blast accomplish this with out affecting the large plastic water tank positioned directly in front of this blast vector?
Could the rolling and detachment of SWB's been caused by bending loads applied by aerodynamic breakup?
Parts were "pressure" washed to remove salt brine, this removes traces of evidence also.
The Iranian 747 needed an outside source to ignite the explosion. There was no lightning in the area of Flight 800. NTSB tests on the center-fuel tank required boosting the power of the spark beyond the capacity of the wiring in the center fuel tank.
"I prefer fact over fantasy."
Nice try but the NTSB reports totally discount eyewitness reports and relies on a supposed theory or "scenario" to reach their conclusion. Metallurgy specialist for the NTSB, James F. Wildey wrote in summary of his own report:
"The Group strove to fit a proposed scenario to all relevant observations in a given area. In some cases, there was more than one identified possibility for a particular feature. In some cases, the Group had to accept that some feature(s) either could not be explained by the proposed scenario or might even be in conflict with the proposed scenario."
He also noted that his conclusions presented an apparent conflict with the evidence and that additional evidence was not explained.
The determining factor for me on the problem with the post explosion climb theory from a layman's view is that the supposed "climb" originated at 13.7K feet in the air and 11 miles from the nearest land-based eyewitness. Virtually all of the eyewitnesses described two objects. The plane being one and a glowing object rising "from the horizon" where it met the plane resulting in the ensuing fireball. The NTSB says the origin of the "streak" was at the position in the sky of the plane. The difference between a 2200 foot climb and a 13 thousand foot climb is huge at 11 miles. From 11 miles away and at an altitude of 13,700 feet? Nobody...again, NOBODY would ever mistake the actual position of the plane for the horizon.
Also due to the fact that numerous "experts" in various fields have all come forward questioning the results of the NTSB Report and they have all been met with deaf ears, I suspect that your canned response to most questions is "read the report" and your unwillingness to accept any facts contrary to the NTSB report suggests that you might have more than just a passing interest in the subject.