Marc Rotenberg wrote:
FWIW, Kallstrom spent much of his time at the press conference this week debunking the missle theory. The FBI's explanation for why so many eyewitnesses appeared to see a missile approach the plane boils down to this: observers, alerted by the explosion, were actually observing a wing falling away from the plane.
To amplify this a bit: the explanation also included the speculation of cascading fuel being ignited from the bottom and flaming upward, which could be interpreted by the observers as a missile rising. An interesting view which I wonder if any of our scientists here find credible. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall the CIA video showing upward flaming fuel, rather it showed a billowing explosion centered on the main fuel tank of the upturning fuselage (as the front cabin plummeted). Is it feasible that the fuel would ignite and flame upward that way or would it be too broadly dispersed by speed and the atmosphere to cause a coherent, shaped flame such as that of a missile tail? For example, would an adept pilot be able to tell the difference? This is posed because of the way several theories of the OKC blomb blast got it wrong due to overly narrow initial interpretation as did misinterpretations of other controversial "terrorisms." Perhaps Tim May is correct in his assessment of Jim, but NTSC's upcoming hearing should produce more reliable technical information than Kallstrom appears to be comfortable handling -- given his bent for melodrama fine details of investigation seem to be an annoyance, although he appeared to like the assurance of the CIA's virtual reality. Kallstrom also said that the case will remain open, I guess in case Boeing or TWA or something needs to be zapped by blind justice.