Hi 747Focal:
when you say you were 'just told there was no fire at the crash site because of extremely heavy rain", what do you mean exactly?
Do you mean that a colleague just passed on this information to you as gossip when you were next to each other at the water-cooler in the corridor of your office? Or do you mean that you had just read this theory in an earlier posting on this thread? Or do you mean that you have heard some validated commentary that emanates from the actual crash investigation process that is going on right now in Venezuela?
In other words, I am asking you the degree to which we should regard your comment as being a current objective evaluation by the crash investigation team, or not? I am not putting you down or anything, but I merely want to know how credible is the statement that you are putting forward. Is it your opinion, or is it a validated fact?
I readily admit to my own theory (about the lack of a ground fire being evidence of a lack of fuel in the crashing plane) being based on nothing more than sheer common sense, able to be dismissed in an instant by objective fact. I have no grounds for defending my position other than the two points I previously raised to propose this view earlier on this thread.
Do you have any factual evidence to support your claim that heavy rain snuffed out a potential fire? In the photos there is little evidence of any kind of fuel sheen covering the water around the crash site. Was all the fuel washed away by the torrential rain that also stopped the fire from occuring in the first place?
If the plane had enough fuel to continue on to Martinique and the alternate destination beyond, and if rain snuffed out any potential crash fire, then would there not be a ton or so of fuel sitting on top of the swampy water at the crash site?