[Rokke]

Now, my previous post to you notwithstanding, you are exactly the person on trial as we are discussing your theory. A theory for which you have absolutely no proof. Let me catalog some things for you which are not proven or flat out wrong:

1. A 30 knot surfaced sub (unproven)
2. A KKV missile launched the day of the TWA 800 disaster (unproven)
3. A target towing P-3 (unproven)
4. Exhibit 13E chart I-9 data that shows a P-3 or a "sled" (wrong)
5. A chaff emitting hybrid missile. Chaff is used to obscure radar targets, not "paint" them, and it drifts with the wind. It does not linger in place for 30 minutes (unless there is no wind) (wrong)
6. ATC primary radars track target altitudes (wrong)
7. The NTSB incorrectly plotted the radar data they were given (unproven)
8. Altitude data in Exhibit 13E was falsified by the USAF or NTSB (unproven)

I could probably go on, but what's the point. Your theory is already toast. You propose a theory (most of which is based on wrong information) and then defend it by saying you don't need to prove anything. Are you kidding me? Asking someone for proof isn't a "game". It is merely assuming that people wouldn't trash the reputations of countless people in several government and civilian organizations without some proof. I don't think that is too much to ask. So let me ask it again. To the list I just posted, where is your proof? If you don't have any, withdraw your completely unsupportable theory, and try another one.

[_Jim]

Has anybody proposed that it was the failure of the actual airframe/aircraft itself?

And, actually, in all lilelyhood the most probable and rational reason -

- the failure in an older airframe with many hours and many T/L cycles as well in an area which has been problmatic in the past on OTHER 747's, and, caused one event which originally was thought to be a 'bomb' but turned out to be 'door' (door latches) instead ...

I realize all the snap, pizaz and sexiness lies with the very popular (amongst the tin-foil crowd especially) errant or intententional missile theory.

The more likely - and with precedent - theory is the Forward Cargo Bay Door theory.

Taking into account 1) the more reliable eye-witness accounts from pilots of aircraft in the area operating at altitude - as well as 2) RADAR data and 3) the physical location of recovered 'parts' belonging to TWA800, 4) #3 fodded engine (on rights side/same side as FCBD) AND 5) the history of that airframe series -

- THE single most likely cause was FCBD ...

[barf]

You should have quit when you were ahead. "chaff" is not used to radar paint an object? What do ejection seats carry to locate where to look for a downed pilot? What do test missiles without warheads use to locate where the intercept occurred? You are totally braindead if you keep your current position. As I have stated, you need to go back to school. Since admitting that double returns were present in a twelve second period, you have acted punch drunk. Take a break to get your head on straight. You are not writing for a class of little kids. Aviation professionals take part in this forum. Maybe you are a friend of Elmer and that explains it.