If this is supposed to mean that they could have used JP-4 in Flight 800, they didn't. The NTSB would not have spent $40 million dollars trying to get Jet A to explode under the conditions they stated were involved in the crash, if it had been using the more volatile JP-4. They failed to make it happen and instead blew up the tank using hydrogen gas and propane to start the reaction, with a spark 63,000 times the energy of the spark they stated in their report would be sufficient.
If the center tank was the initiating event as stated, why do the scorch marks end at the break in the fuselage? Why were none of the bodies burned, but 89 had shrapnel removed, and then confiscsated by the FBI? Why was a portion of the front wing spar CW504 found in the earliest debris field, while the portions of crossbeam #3 were found with the CWT in the final debris? On the 747-131 model the CWT ended at crossbeam #3, and the front wing spar was in front of a maintenance walkway, with no fuel behind it. When this plane was hit by lightning in June of 1995 in Rome, why didn't the faulty wiring cause the CWT to explode then, since it took them a week to repair the wing damage then? What caused the external to internal punctures of the CWT at speeds exceeding 1000 ft/sec by small objects, and why would that not be considered a probable cause of the CWT explosion? Why did early photos of the wreckage show the fuel tank floor had been pushed upward by 7 feet, and later photos show it having been pounded back down? (Senate testimony indicates that metal portions of the plane were being pounded into place.)
_Jim, I really don't care if you aren't going to pay me much mind, since you don't have much to spare. I would appreciate it if you didn't expound on subjects with which you are not familiar.