Re: From the Files - Freeh and Flight 800

[John Young <jya@pipeline.com>]

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.