What are you basing that on? The government has not come out and declared a cause. They have said they don't know the cause, they have also discussed those things they do know. Seperate the two things.
"What are you basing that on? The government has not come out and declared a cause. They have said they don't know the cause, they have also discussed those things they do know. Seperate the two things."
Basically, the government has said "we have no evidence to suggest that this was terrorism." Just as logically, since none was presented, I would suggest that at the same time they had no evidence to suggest that it was mechanical failure. Right? The first statement has an implied basis-- namely that all aircraft crashes are assumed to be the result of mechanical failure (unless obviously an accident of some other sort) until proven otherwise. While that might have been a useful paradigm before we were engaged in the first fourth generation war in our history, it might not be quite so useful an assumption now. Since 9/11, now seven planes have gone down-- the 4 on 9/11 (terrorism), 1 in Italy (accident), 1 (the Israeli plane) somewhere in the old Soviet Union (accidentally SHOT down), and now this one. Before that, even if one accepts the verdict on TWA flight 800, it's pretty clear that the Egyptian plane taken down by the pilot was, shall we say, politically motivated? (I don't know anything about the Swissair crash.) So, in the new world, the assumption of mechanical failure until proven otherwise is looking ragged.
Like I said, if they're willing to say "I don't know" and leave it at that, I'll be perfectly willing to wait for the engineers to figure it out. Until then, the more they try to spin me, the more suspicious I get.