Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

They were using dummy warheads. That's why only small amounts of explosive residue was found in the seating compartment. The damage to the fuselage was consistent with a projectile entering from one side and exiting the other, right in front of the wing and behind the cockpit section. The nose area of the plane basically fell off and the rest of the plane went down into the ocean a few thousand yards further downstream.

Nope, it's just what I think.

Salinger thought the same thing:
http://www.welfarestate.com/twa800/pierre.htm

And these guys think the same thing:
http://www.twa800.com/index.htm

The FBI and The Navy did a helluva job concealing evidence. That's the point.

Again... the Navy is testing missiles next to one of the busiest airports in the world? Seems legit.

I see. That's chilling.

Why would the Navy do any kind of missile test anywhere near NYC? There are several very large airports in the area.

I could maybe buy a terrorist attack but I really don't see the logic in the military theory. :shrug:

So did Bob Lazar.

Right, because nobody in the military ever ****s anything up. LMAO

Here's why they THEORIZE the Navy may have been involved. -BTW, I'm not saying with any certainty this is what happened. I just don't buy that a fuel tank just blew up like that. I think it warrants further investigation. Info comes from here:

http://tinyurl.com/lrgeqcc

Why Did Attention Focus on a Test Missile?

Initially, it was claimed that there was virtually no explosive residue on the 747 wreckage. In normal practice, missiles being tested or used for training have dummy warheads; inert packages which are the same size and weight of real warheads but which do not explode.

In many cases, such practice munitions are recovered and reused.

An Associated Press Article on March 10, 1997 reported the following:
The report said “compelling testimony” indicated a missile hit the
plane on the right side, forward of the wing, passing through the
fuselage without exploding.

This is consistent with a test missile with a dummy warhead. Of course, it was not known at the time that evidence of explosive residue was even then being concealed from the public, but by that time, the claimed lack of explosive residue had suggested a test missile to most observers, and attention began to focus on the Navy’s Cooperative Engagement Capability system, which had been undergoing tests, including live missile firings, along the Atlantic seaboard all that summer.

When it was finally revealed that there was explosive residue on the remains of the Boeing 747, the mainstream media tried to explain it away as contamination from a bomb sniffing dog training exercise that ultimately turned out to have taken place on a different aircraft entirely.

Had it been true, remnants from a training exercise did not explain a swath of residue ten rows long and three seats wide reaching from an obvious perforation in the forward section trailing back to where the forward section broke away from the rest of the 747.

Why not?

Some people have theorized that this was a stinger missile fired as an act of terrorism, perhaps funded by Iran. But (of course) that has never been acknowledged or confirmed. But that is another missile theory.

I think the evidence points towards the cause being a missile, not an exploding fuel tank. Who fired it? That's the $64 quesiton. And for whatever reason, the US Govt doesn't want that information confirmed or known.

Unfortunately, the Stinger's range is ~15,000 feet.

the FIM-92 Stinger missile has a range up to 15,000 feet. The plane was at 13,800 feet when it blew up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

So there is no evidence at all to the theory a missile took it out.

Why not?