So now the wing box WASN'T "blown to hell from the INSIDE" like you claimed before. If the wing box was indeed blown to hell from the inside there wouldn't be the structural integrity to maintain climbing flight. One or the other.
Now, explain the debris field that went 90 degrees to the right of the flight path.
You can not believe what you don’t want to believe.
A pitched up fuselage could create enough lift that it climbed in formation with the wings at least for a mile or so before going ballistic. It only had to stay together for 15-25 seconds to cover the area it did, before it failed completely and a wings separated.
You’ve seen the WWII video of the B24 taking a direct hit to the wing root? The Wings don’t fold up, the fuselage drops away. If TWA800’s nose drops away instead, the remaining fuselage pitches up, creates lift and takes load off the damaged wing box.
The wings did fall off, they just didn’t fall off right away.
There is No actual Aircraft Accident investigator, who has looked at the displacement of the walls of the Center Wing Tank that said that it wasn’t blown up from the inside. The Center wing Tank Blew up in flight. The Front wall went forward, the top went up, the bottom went down, the back wall went aft.
My prediction: When the Highway department “crash Investigator” reveals his “findings” and you all watch the Riveting TWA800 “documentary” on Epix, you are going to think the “are mermaids real” documentary was less of a waste of your time.
But I will leave the tinfoil hats out there with this: When the NTSB releases its report on the Bagram 747-400 crash, the conspiracy kooks may have something. TWA 800 took off with a CG of 18% MAC, which is super stable (and helped it fly straight after the nose fell off). Boeing engineers say the CG went to 57% MAC after the nose fell off, which is unstable, but apparently not “instant vertical”.
If the CG on the Bagram 747 was forward of 57% MAC, the Boeing engineers has some esplaining to do. If it was 60%+ MAC nothing to see here, move along.