[Born to Conserve]

IMHO:

The tail fell off as a result of wake turbulance and fatigue, then the engines broke off as a result of a flat spin.

No bomb, no missle, no Martians, no sabatage.

They are not going to ground all similar aircraft for mechanical inspections if they know it was not caused by mechanical failure. If they call for a major grounding, then I'll be convinced it was mechanical.

[nicmarlo]

If they call for a major grounding, then I'll be convinced it was mechanical

But I thought I read yesterday that they were going to be either grounding all Airbuses or checking them all before they could fly.

[Blueflag]

You were doing great until you're third paragraph. The A300s (of two models) had already been hit with an AD from the FAA. They ARE ALL already 'grounded' for US and French carriers. Obviously structural (not mechanical) failure is suspectsd.

[Thud]

The engines being thrown off in a spin would result in fuel leaks which could ignite. Burning fuel sometimes smokes, especially if rubber or plasticized fittings are involved.

So there are lots of possibile explanations. I remember posts early on stating that the engines being thrown off was proof of a bomb or missile.

[aruanan]

IMHO:

It doesn't sound too H to me.

[ValerieUSA]

Turbulance on that nice clear day didn't strike the plane apart. Something solid struck the plane, not a gust of air.

[JoeSchem]

If they call for a major grounding, then I'll be convinced it was mechanical.

If they don't call for a major grounding, then it wasn't mechanical. And that leaves terrorism.