Yeah, sounds legit.
What you described are inescapable facts.
The alternative is what? A spontaneous 747 center fuel tank explosion that never happened before or since, and the flat out denial of hundreds of eye witnesses who saw a missile rise up out of the water and hit the plane, and the dismissal of a major naval exercise based around the Aegis combat coordination technology which is literally designed to control, track and monitor multiple assets simultaneously - exactly as would be required from a sub missile launch. Oh yeah - and even though a number of companies with proven track records spent millions of dollars developing and displaying for sale, with all engineering finished and connected to current combat conrol platforms, a sub-fired SAM, somehow the fact that I point out all of these things is a "fantasy" because... why? Because YOU were once on a submarine, back when they ran on bicycle gears and spitwads, and they didn't have no high falutin' flying missile what got shot outta the torpedo tubes back then.
Well lemme clutch my pearls, darlin, I think I'm gonna faint.
You know, I really don't think we're going to find any areas of agreement. We should just leave it at that.
Facts... I don't think that word means what you think it means
The alternative is what? A spontaneous 747 center fuel tank explosion that never happened before or since,
I find the official explanation a bit hard to swallow, but just because something that may have happened hasn't happened before or since then, that is not proof that it did not happen.
You should note however, airplane fuel tanks have exploded before without a bomb or missile hitting them. There was 737 that exploded on the ground in 1990 after new wiring was passed through the fuel tank, which may have damaged existing wiring.
and the flat out denial of hundreds of eye witnesses who saw a missile rise up out of the water and hit the plane,
This doesn't strike you as odd? How can an observer see the surface of the ocean from over ten miles away? You realize the Earth is round right? How far out do you think the horizon is exactly? If you're on the beach at the edge of the water, 3 miles tops. After that, boats start disappearing.
and the dismissal of a major naval exercise based around the Aegis combat coordination technology which is literally designed to control, track and monitor multiple assets simultaneously -
I don't know if there was an exercise in the area at the time or not. While I've never participated in naval exercises (my subs were spec ops and were always alone), I will dismiss the idea that the navy was conducting live fire exercises in one of the heaviest commercial air corridors on the planet. That's just stupid.
exactly as would be required from a sub missile launch.
A submarine does not need an Aegis ship in order to launch a missile. The BSY-1 Combat Control System onboard can do that just fine. But of course that's for Tomahawks and Harpoons, not fictitious missiles.
Oh yeah - and even though a number of companies with proven track records spent millions of dollars developing and displaying for sale, with all engineering finished and connected to current combat conrol platforms, a sub-fired SAM,
Did you just pull that out of your ass? Your story involves the Seawolf, so I guess the navy just let all these foreign companies have access to the brand new BSY-2 CCS of the most advanced submarine ever constructed to write code for a missile system the navy never asked for?
somehow the fact that I point out all of these things is a "fantasy" because... why? Because YOU were once on a submarine, back when they ran on bicycle gears and spitwads, and they didn't have no high falutin' flying missile what got shot outta the torpedo tubes back then.
Let me repeat myself here. I was in the navy when TWA 800 exploded. My boats were Los Angeles class fast attack submarines. The Seawolf class was not operational and had many teething issues that prevented them from becoming operational until 2001.
While the Los Angeles class boats could fire missiles from either their torpedo tubes or their VLS (flights II & III only), those missiles are for land attack (Tomahawk) or anti-ship (Harpoon) missions.
Submarines in the US Navy do not have anti-aircraft capabilities. The defensive tactic to go deep and quiet. A submarine has no way to track aircraft. If you built a system that relied on an Aegis cruiser or destroyer's radar, then why not just use that surface ship's SM-2 missiles to take it out? Why definitively give up the subs position?
Well lemme clutch my pearls, darlin, I think I'm gonna faint. You know, I really don't think we're going to find any areas of agreement. We should just leave it at that.
Can we at least agree that Los Angeles class submarines do not have anti-aircraft capability? I mean that at least covers my real world experience and allows you to keep your Seawolf class fantasy.