OK, now that I've got your attention, I'll even benchmark for you: what were the chances that an uncontained engine failure could sever all three hydraulic systems on a DC-9 (United 232, Sioux City)? A billion to one? Think, maybe, the odds were lower for a center tank explosion on TWA-800? Is my point clear now?
The main foul up involved with this whole investigation was that when the incompetent people with guns and badges, the FBI, arrived on the scene, they screwed the site up for the real accident professionals, the NTSB.
Not really. I'm guessing that you are coming down on the side of mechanical failure? BTW, I think you mean DC-10.
Think, maybe, that if one of these scenarios would have actually been the cause that the whole fleet would have been grounded?
Think, maybe, that hundreds of eyewitnesses saw a short-circuit hot enough to ignite jet fuel?
I really hate to be on the conspiratorial side here, but all the reading I've done on this incident points away from mechanical causes IMO. Especially the circumstantial evidence, like all the misdirection coming from the FBI, the radar images being unavailable, hundreds of eye-witness classified as "drunk," war vets flying other planes in the area that described "ordinance" as what they saw before the explosion, Clinton in the White House at the time when the media reported as "news" every press release....
I wish I still had the link to the debris field analysis article I read back then. It layed out in a fashion that precluded any possibility of the center wing tank failure being the cause. It was very damning evidence.
Mr.M