I know this has been brought up before, in fact I think Bill Donaldson himself mentioned it as a possibility - but the expanding rod warhead is designed to slice an aircraft in two.

Sadly, the link is on my other machine, but Ben Partin has raised this possibility, and I for one would not ignore such a knowledgeable individual.

This weapon needs no magic spark, but does produce visible signs of its launch - so this possibility fits the evidence, and would back up the witnesses.

I'll post the link when I find it.

I don't understand why persons insist on speculating about EMP warheads and "expanding rods" to try to explain the possibility of no high-impact damage to F800 when there was in fact extensive high-impact damage. Much of which was documented in ARAP's Interim Report and some of which is clearly visible in the official reconstruction photos (esp. the forward, starboard cargo bay door area and just forward of the wings on both sides).

So why close your eyes and go down that road of pure speculation at all?

{0}FOB

The point I'm trying to make is that there are other ways to inflict a result which do not require the production of a magic spark to prove the NTSB case.

Pardon my passing on something I saw for the first time today. (NOT)

I've yet to see any photographs which show damage that could not be caused by the consequences of the IE. At least one witness described a part of the fuselage toppling end over end as it fell in flames, that is gonna hurl a deal of heavy material about. Exit holes? You betcha.

Speculation is all we have, given the absence of a definitive initiating event.

When those photographs are released, I'll be the first to look at them, but what I've seen so far is by no means conclusive.

While we're at it NoFoB, your theory wouldn't contain any speculation on your part would it? Even if it were already proven and accepted that a missile(s) were to blame, the perpetrator has not been identified to my knowledge or satisfaction.

Just my opinion of course......

Oy, NoFoB,

Just what is a 'Shill'?

I keep getting these strange e-mails assuring me that I am a shill.

I take it that it's some kind of hidden compliment? It wouldn't have anything to do with the 'Kings shilling' would it?

I looked up "shill' in my trusty Merriam-Webster pocket edition. It said "syn. Elmer Barr."

But seriously, the word originates from American slang. It means "one who acts as a decoy (as for a cheater)." A shill plays the "satisfied customer" in a swindle.

It has come to mean anyone who knowingly lies by playing the "straight man" for someone else as in the phrase, "Trevor is a shill for Elmer Barr." Or, "Elmer Barr is a government shill."

Get it? And, no, I haven't been sending you those e-mails. Sheeeesh!

Oh, a word on the damage. I assume that ARAP considered the ocean impact and possible CWT explosion when seeking a cause for the damage, no?

I've never heard of an ocean impact that can melt paint. And the forward cargo door area was too far forward of the CWT to be singed by that "explosion." Plus there are no soot deposits in that area. 'Nuff said.

{0}FOB

Thanks for that NoFoB,

I'm still working on the e-mail addresses, to be honest it's about the only mail I get which isn't insulting - but only 'cause I don't know what it means!

The rest threaten physical violence, but I know full well who they're from.

I still think my definition is more accurate, the Kings shilling was a term used for joining the Brit Army in the nether years. If a Colonist were to spy for the Brits, he would be earning the Kings 'Shill'-ing.

It aint that important, I've put the FBI on the case, I expect to see the explosive residue and threatening letters come back as flowers and Valentine cards.

You're the one that should be barred, your position's never changed - unlike mine!

"You're the one that should be barred, your position's never changed - unlike mine!"

I didn't know you ever had a position.

FOBnaught

Bastard....

I agree on one point, Gen Benton K. Partin is no lightweight.

However, if you buy his theory, you're probably back to a military scenario, as it is very unlikely this type of weapon would be in the possession of your "average terrorist".....if I can use a rather vague description.

The Russians, do possess this type of weapon however.