Really, honest questions.
My information comes from a recently retired US Ranger in charge of deploying Stinger squads. That is where I got Mach 4 and also the absence of fragmentation. The triggering I got from spiels on TWA 800 which all seem to use the China Lake experiments. Seeing as the warhead is "only" 2 pounds of explosive and seeing as the weight of the stinger is obviously small - I do not think the fragmentation is correct. The recent hit by a Ukraine airline was a large AAM.
What I did note is that at the China Lake use of stinger on a Tomcat, a large FBI contingent was present to develop forensic evidence. The FBI budget for winter 2000 had $1mm plus earmarked for such forensic capability. If it is so cut and dried and considering the present context, why havent this capability "reported" and definitively show it was not a MANPAD? Surely this would be cut and dried. Instead the NTSB claims it was not terrorists as there is no sound fo their voices as they tried to enter the cockpit nor the sound of an on board bomb. I am very curious why they even bother to say there is no sound of forced entry into the cockpit. That seems to be smoke.
Anyone else have some direct experience? Is the fragmentation large? What exactly remains after a stinger triggers? Is there anyone with exact infoin the trade who can squash like a bug any concerns that a MANPAD was responsibel for the large lateral sheering forces?
The "fishing" is not data mining to fit a already developed conclusion but to find a force that can sheer a tail and also two engines.
It seems after the material failure of the tail we still have to figure out the engines.
Or, if there is not material failure, we have to find a rather massive force that tears a tail fin off and two engines.
Outside of a stinger, the only other spiel which makes sense was the theorey of the whole aircraft going into a "flutter" throughout the whole A/C.