I spent some time today looking for an unclassified source that lists minimum ranges and structural load limits for the Standard SM-2 missile. I couldn't find one, but let me explain two problems with your theory. The range between your shooter (the 30 knot track) and TWA 800 is a little less then 3 miles at the time TWA 800 starts to destruct. Your theory is that TWA 800 was struck by a Standard SM-2 missile carrying a KKV. That means it must have been a Standard SM-2 Block IV A, or possibly a specially modified SM-2 Block IV. Both missiles are Extended Range (ER) missiles with a Mk-72 booster attached. The SM-2 Block IV is a mach 3.5 missile built to hit targets at very long range. It has three stages of motors to propel its KKV warhead to exo-atmospheric altitudes. Without getting into specific numbers, I can tell you that 3 miles is not enough range for the SM-4 Block IV to launch guide and function. Furthermore, the KKV program includes a specially modified Aegis radar, capable of tracking tactical ballistic missile warheads above the atmosphere. There isn't a submarine in the galaxy with that kind of capability.
Additionally, even if it could launch and guide in that short a range, the G forces required to get it to reverse direction to impact the 747 from the exact opposite direction from which it was launched would exceed the structural limits of the missile. It would need to reverse its course while maintaining its nose mounted internal seekers on the target. In other words, it would have to square a corner. To do so, even if you assume the missile is only traveling at mach 1, would require a G load well beyond its structural limits. Keep in mind, the SM-2 is not a high G dog fighting missile. It is a long range interceptor. Lots of speed, lots of range, not much maneuverability.
Having said that, assuming your FDR analysis is correct, you could still say TWA 800 was impacted by a KKV missile in its left empennage, but the missile would have had to have come from a source at a much greater range then the 30 knot track, and positioned most likely from the South or West.
This was a test, not normal operational usage. Your comments may explain why the test went bad. It obviously did not perform as expected. Your own rationale' could be why.
A witness to the actual impact stated that the object made a hard turn, followed a zigzag course before striking the B747. I concur with the hard turn in that if you draw a straight line from the 30-knot target through the sled, you must go right to hit the B747. So far, witness data matches radar evidence. Why the NTSB appeared to stay away from the FDR and radar evidence shows that they could not allow the facts to conflict with their own Mickey Mouse cause. Any one who states that the FDR data came from a previous flight has ignored the fact that the anomalies came only one second after the last clean data. Why are FDRs on aircraft other than show what happened? If what happens only one second later is ignored we may as well throw away the FDR's. Why didn't the NTSB review the FDR anomalies?