I didn't ignore you. I don't know how long you have been on FR, but often posters have actual LIVES and other things to do than sit around and instantly respond to everyone's comments.
When I found your 'comment', I responded. In my response I implied that you likely know more about American SLAAM's than I do. That is why I did not instantly 'report' to you with technical specs on the American SLAAM's.
FYI I'm a submarine veteran that was in during the time of the TWA 800 loss.
The instant I read your first comment to me, my first thought was that you were a sub vet and your service was possibly during the period when this incident happened. Your other comments (to others) that I read pretty much confirmed it. Which is why I said, why don't you tell us what you know.
We don't have anti-aircraft capabilities on submarines.
Am I to assume that you meant "didn't" have at the time ?
If you are no longer in the military and on a sub, how would you know what they have now ?
If the military , at the time, was testing NEW TECHNOLOGY, how would you know a thing about it ? You (my guess) weren't on one of the subs participating in the naval exercises.
Am I right ?
Allow me to clarify things a bit here, if you will.
I was presenting the 'idea' that a submarine could have launched a missile and the missile could have hit TWA800. It is not the only possibility, and I would agree it is probably a very slim possibility.
The missile could have been fired from any type of Ship participating in the Naval Exercise.
It could have been a DRONE that hit the TWA800 flight.
It could have been from a MANPADS, or it could have been some other type of MISSILE and LAUNCHER.
One thing I am pretty sure of, and that is that some type of rocket propelled device hit the aircraft. So... If I postulate that one of the ships (not a submarine) launched a DRONE or MISSILE that hit TWA800, do you find that to be a possibility ?
Remember, you initiated contact with me, not the other way around. I responded to you. You did not respond, which of course is A-Okay. But then I noticed you posted the same illustration on this thread, again without information. I figured you for a hit and run type of guy and made a comment. You thought it was sassy. BTW if you hover over a poster's handle, it will show you how long they've been around.
As for the rest of your comments, here are my answers:
I did mean "don't" as I am pretty damn sure that we do not have this capability even now, but you are correct in that I am no longer in the military and obviously not in a position to know what new technologies are being fitted to submarines.
That of course is moot since this occurred in 1996 when I was in a position to know quite a bit about new tech. I was on two Los Angeles class attack boats (a flight I and a flight II), yet I know all about the reactor design on the yet to be commissioned at the time USS Seawolf (or PCU Seawolf more accurately). Please don't tell me an anti-aircraft missile is something to be more closely guarded than the most advanced nuclear reactor design ever created at that point.
As for new military technology... it has a very long gestation period. It's not like an iPhone.
You are right that I never participated in fleet exercises. Both my boats were spec ops and never attached to a carrier group.
Concerning the rest of your post, it's all speculation and while many of the things you said may be technically possible, I think they are highly improbable.