[Agnes Heep]

The fuel leak (or center fuel tank explosion) scenario just doesn't work for me. You ever try to pour a Coke out your car window at 60 mph?

I don't have the technical expertise to challenge that, but I've seen video of a leaking wing tank on a large airplane. The fuel not only was shooting straight back from the wing, it was more-or-less atomized as it came out, creating a dangerous situation that luckily never came to pass.

An aircraft mechanic who had seen puncture holes in the underside of one of the wings of TWA 800 claimed that those holes matched up very nicely with the rivets on the engine cowling. If the cowling hadn't been properly secured, he opined, it would have flown back and the rivets would have punctured the wing.

[HangThemHigh]

Interesting theory with the rivet punctures. First I've heard of that. Did he think the cowling just cane off or did it have some other cause? Also, I'm a little confused as how this fits the rest of the case - why would the government need to cover up a cowling failure by claiming a fuel tank explosion? And how does that fit with the fuel leak/missile trail or whatever it was?

I'm still hard pressed to discount the testimony of 100's of witnesses that they saw a missile.

[6AL-4V]

Engine cowlings are smooth, the rivets and bolts are flush with the aluminum skin of the cowling. They wouldn't puncture the wing skin. If a cowling wasn't closed properly it would depart the aicraft, though it would go backwards not up into the lower surface of the wing. The bottom of the wing is thick in this area to prevent being compromised by a wheel/tire failure on landing or an uncontained engine failure. I don't for a minute believe the center tank exploded. I have spent many hours working inside aircraft fuel tanks. I don't believe any spark could ignite jet fuel at ambient pressure.