[UberVernunft]

As far as the exploding fuel tank evidence is concerned...if every accident cause required a precedent in ordered to be considered a valid cause

No, the precedent is not a "cause", but an explanation based on inductive reasoning.

, then there would be a lot more unexplained accidents. With a mechanical object as complex as an airliner, the statement "______ just doesn't break/explode in flight" doesn't pull much weight.

When the shuttle exploded, the cause was traced to a defective part. Has anything been done like this for Flight 800? If not a defective part, then special conditions would need to exist that precipitated the explosion. Could this be true? Of course not, otherwise the entire fleet would have been grounded.

The "explanation" of the fuel tank explosion is not based on any evidence whatsoever.

[Rokke]

"The "explanation" of the fuel tank explosion is not based on any evidence whatsoever."

This must be another one of your "facts". Apparently you haven't read the NTSB report, or the submissions by Boeing, TWA, ALPA or the IAM. There is plenty of evidence proving an explosion within the CWT caused the breakup of TWA800. What was never determined was the exact initiating source of the CWT explosion. Now that is a fact.

[Tymesup]

There was an article within the last year in the WSJ to the effect that someone had studied explosions in fuel tanks. They expected approximately one incident would occur in twenty years. Therefore, no action would be taken to fix this "problem".