--- In sr111@y..., barbarafetherolf <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> Just want to clarify something I said in my last post. I meant that
> Mark spoke with Beanspiller not the source. Just want to be very
> accurate about this.
>
> Barbara

Is Mark still able to contact him? If so, it would be a great
opportunity to bring up the points I mentioned, and try to get some
clarification. For example, why did he say that law requires wiring
to be run in conduit when this is not true? Why did he say the IFEN
was installed down by the leading edge of the left wing, when in fact
it was installed in the first-class overhead?

I'm not disagreeing with him on the cause of the fire being the faulty
wiring to the IFEN. That has been my number one suspicion for a long
time now (I think we have all suspected that as being the root cause
of the tragedy). That part certainly rings true.

I can also understand that, if the person is not knowldegeable about
aviation, they could have confused the information given to them, and
maybe misrepresented it in the post.

But I am questioning the other "facts" that this person presented. The
way they are presented in the post does not bring anything new to
light (there really is nothing in there that hadn't already been
leaked to the press, either officialy or unofficially, or speculated
up widely). I guess Beanspiller was able to provide additional
information to Mark that was not in the post, since the post still
does not convince me.

Perhaps it is just a case of Beanspiller getting mixed up due to lack
of knowledge. The only way to clarify that is to ask him/her. So, if
Beanspiller still has contact with the original source, then I can
think of a number of questions that I would like to ask of the source,
in order to clear up my doubts about the truthfulness of the
information. Of course, the questions and answers would have to be
carefully phrased in such a way as to ensure that the identity of the
source remains totally concealed.

Do you think that would be possible? Is Mark still able to contact
Beanspiller, and is Beanspiller still able to contact the source?

Regarding the newspaper article on the contents of the report, yes I
did see that. It sounds quite feasible. I have no reason to doubt
that the information is correct. But it is rather incomplete!
Personally, I don't see the reason why the families are not allowed to
see the report immediately, especially if the Captain's widow has
already been allowed to read it. I can't see why the TSB wouldn't
just ask you all to sign a binding Non Disclosure Agreement, then
allow you to read the report. It seems very unfair, if you ask me.