You wrote: "Since you insisted on going to the trouble of defining the term, are you implying that you are a toady, or that you refuse to let the missile concept go -- or both? "

It's no trouble, Dan, correcting your mistakes, but I won't bother with your attempts to put words into my mouth.

I know you realize this, but the bashed-in front gear door is evidence of an external explosion in the immediate vicinity of the 747, as the article clearly notes.

If you do a little more reading, you'll discover the probable fate of your missing missile debris, but I would like to know where you got the notion that Sander's evidence was tampered with?

You say missile evidence doesn't exist. Then when it is presented, you say there's too much, or it's no good, or it's been tampered with.

I think it highly unlikely that impact with the ocean would produce the kind of damage we see on the starboard wing. As I mentioned, most - but certainly not all - of the shrapnel from an externally exploding missle would miss the the plane, but some no doubt would hit it. One white-hot shard probably penetrated the CWT and ignited the fuel vapors which had been shocked into a mist by the explosion. Another piece probably penetrated the passenger compartment and left traces of its passege therein.

Credible experts familiar with the Flight 800 disaster say that all the evidence supports the theory that a missile brought down the plane. Until I see data that supports a different theory, and lots of it, I can't find any reason to doubt that it was a missile or missiles which brought down the big jet, just as all the eyewitnesses have reported.

sp