I have not insisted this was terrorism. I simply reject the early conclusion, before any investigation, that it wasn't terrorism, and the immediate rejection of eyewitness accounts before any investigation. I don't trust any investigation that begins with a predetermined conclusion, followed by spin to convince the public of that scenario. You have labelled my objectivity as the exact opposite of what it is. Your up is down mentality is quite tiresome. The final reports of the "investigation" may very well be the same as the initial judgement. And if so, I expect you'll point to that as proof that no one should ever question authorities who claim to have all the facts before humanly possible. But it won't convince me.
There is no mystery to those who work there.