In response to the TraderAl post speculating that a man-portable surface-to-air missile, such as a Stinger, might have brought down AA587:
The Stinger has a "small" fragmentation warhead that is designed to explode in close proximity to its target. It is a heat-seeking missile that aims for exhaust heat provided by the engine(s). Apparently, neither engine, nor for that matter the airframe itself, has been reported to have had fragmentation damage. The photos of the engine that landed at the gas station doesn't appear to have any fragmentation damage.
The targets that "China Lake" reports to have broken up in flight were probably either target drones or remote controlled fighter jets such as QF-4's. These are much smaller targets than an A300 and are generally flown at high subsonic or supersonic speeds to pose challenging targeting problems for the seeker to resolve.
That these targets would break up in flight when hit is expected. If the target drone or QF-4 lost flight path control when hit the resulting aerodynamic loads would likely cause major structural failure.
Also, there has apparently been no "foreign" debris found consistent with a missile. Recognizable pieces of the missile would probably be found if the airplane had been hit over land. Also, unlike TWA 800, there have been no reports of a missile plume streaking from the ground to hit the airplane.
Also, I recall reading a report of a business jet-sized airplane with twin tail-mounted engines, that had been hit by a Stinger-type, man-portable surface-to-air missile. The pilot successfully landed that airplane. It is possible for a large airplane to survive a Stinger hit.
Whatever, the cause of AA587's crash, it is highly unlikely that it had anything to do with a man portable surface-to-air missile.