Actually, I'm the only one who doesn't give a damn if they are or not. As has been so mockingly pointed out, people can't see past around three miles of ocean from the shore because of the curvature of the earth, and the missile would have been launched from farther out than that. So would it really change anything if it was from a ship over the horizon?
And I'm still not convinced that subs weren't testing or using subSAMs at the time. Why? 1) Because the concept has been pursued by various companies, and 2) Because anyone actually on a sub in those days would not have discussed a top secret technology then or now, especially if it still hasn't been released as having existed back then (which is a subtle, but important point). And yes, if it was used back then that fact would not be cleared for release even today, because of what it would mean about TWA800. So no, anyone with directly knowledge of this information from their hallowed sub days would still not admit it on FR.
But, if it wasn' a sub, so what? It's still a missile fired in the middle of a naval exercise. Via Occam, that means the navy fired it, if not from a sub, then from a ship. Or is it also an absolutely absurd fantasy that a ship would have SAMs? Or that the launch vehicle wouldn't be visible past three miles from shore - at night? Or is that just cheating, because all of this is dependent upon a sub? But I thought it wasn't dependent upon a sub, that it couldn't be dependent upon a sub, because it's literally impossible - subs are only outfitted to deliver teddy bears, and it would take an ASWDTTRRESG-level brain tech MasterChiefCaptainAdmiral with two Ph.Ds, the Congressional Medal of Honor and Astronaut's Wings to verify that anything - anything at all - other than teddy bears could ever be delivered by a sub?
So why not fire the missile from a ship? An Aegis ship, maybe? [shrug] Does it really matter? The POINT is that it was MOST LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN a Navy missile.
All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. And regardless of the lack of evidence to support.
Tone is hard to establish while communicating over the internet. I'm just breaking your balls, but don't mean to offend you too much. Since we're on FR, we probably have more ideas in common than not. I just don't agree with your particular TWA 800 theory.
Although commissioned in July 1997, the USS Seawolf did not enter service until June 25, 2001, when she made her first operational patrol. The Tomahawk launch capability had still not been incorporated at that point, the submarine was still experiencing problems with the pumpjet propulsor, and the BSY-2 combat system was still not operating satisfactorily – nearly 17 years after project inception and well over a decade since the submarine was ordered.
https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=792