Even this doesn't wash out. Just placing explosives haphazardly would not bring down the bridge, someone would need to know exactly where and how to place them. An amateur would have probably put them on the piles and from everything I've seen the piles were intact.
Anyone with the means and ability to do this would have gone after a much more high profile target.
This WAS NOT terrorism.
If everyone is sure it was NOT terrorism, then bring in independent explosives experts to check.
It’s cheap, it’s easy, and it’s extremely noticeable.
That way questions are forever silenced.
As you may have noted, I really don’t think it is terrorism. Not at all a choice juicy target.
I don’t think it was terrorism, even though the absence of evidence of terrorism is not evidence of the absence of terrorism.
The main focus of many terrorism attacks is to affect the economy of the West, and to cause the greatest economic damage possible. A bridge of this importance would fit the criteria, and may be a viable option beause the more highly important targets are being guarded more closely.
IMHO, it was a combination of structural defects that will take a while to doucment. I think the prime suspects are the undermining of the South Pier from water flow through the nearby lock (shown be pictures on this thread from normsrevenge, combined with a weakening and excessive expansion of the steel from the removal of the concrete on the deck. This exposed the steel to increased heat from direct sunlight (otheriwise the deck shades the steel), and this caused the steel to expand more than normal in the hot weather.
We are all entitled to our groundless speculation, aye?
The only way to determine the cause is forensic analysis of the evidence. Everything else is pure speculation and deserves no emphasis.