Originally Posted by nick charles
If it was a CWT explosion and no crime was involved, why are law suits under the FOI Act still required to obtain information? - more than ten years after the event
What an odd statement.
I have a very large folder full of information on the accident, known as the NTSB docket, which includes substantial reports by major scientific organisations on various aspects of fuel tank fires (flammability, ignition and so on). Indeed, there is so much there that one can publish alternative theories in the New York Review of Books which contradict some of the hard evidence in the docket and yet no one will notice.
Presumably the FBI wants to keep its data to itself because that is what the FBI does when it collects data on, inter alia, military activities.
Originally Posted by nick charles
And why does the FBI still list the case as "pending inactive?"
Good question for FBI watchers. Because they can't be bothered to reclassify it? Or because someone there is embarrassed that after so much fuss they found nothing and had to hand the investigation over to the NTSB and is still hoping there might be something there? Or because someone there is a conspiracy theorist?
I might as well ask a question that has been puzzling me. Since you say you are a manufacturer of such fuel tanks, how come you think ullage cannot ignite, despite reams of evidence to show that, and how, it can, and a preceding case to TWA 800 where it did? Would one really want to buy
a fuel tank from someone who apparently wants to contradict what the American Chemical Society, NASA and the NTSB consider to be the established physics and chemistry of a potential hazardous event with such a tank?
Or can you show where the ACS, NASA and NTSB have made mistakes? If so, please share.
PBL