I'm as wary of terrorism as the next guy, but this struck me from the start as a terrible accident, not terrorism. Maybe I'll be proven wrong.
Commercial aviation is a bad business; certainly it would be reasonable to assert that the US domestic industry has only been able to eke out a small profit because it scrimped on security costs. 9/11 proved how much it scrimped.
The idea that a plane could have incurred damage beyond normal wear and tear that wasn't caught and which, over time, became prone to catastrophe doesn't strike me as at all far-fetched.
Well, we agree on that. I wrote a long "possible innocent explanation" yesterday in emails to my son and some friends, all of whom yelled, "Terrorism!". I hasten to add that I am not an airplane expert; heck, I can be charitably described as ignorant.
Where you and I disagree is that this doesn't seem to be "updates." It looks to me like they are searching and searching for an explanation that will work. I could be wrong. But, as I wrote elsewhere yesterday, it seems to me just like the American Muslims telling me their religion is peaceful and that they love America--the more they talk, the more they betray the very arguments they are trying to make.