Poorly done is not an insult. I was responding to a post that says they covered-up.
I am no expert on aviation accidents, but over decades have read maybe 2-3 serious books on the subject. One thing quite clear is that investigation of total airframe loss accidents is often extremely difficult. In this case, as in many others, every scenario worth considering, without exception, requires accepting that something happenned which was extremely unlikely to happen. No proposed scenario probably fit all the facts. The reason the NTSB ruled as they did is that the people on the team honestly thought that of, all the unlikely scenarios, the internal fuel tank explosion scenario was the least unlikely. Does the NTSB always get it right? Who knows? But because these investigations are so difficult, and because there is no ultimate test of whether the NTSB is right, they probably are sometimes wrong.
If I get some time tonight, I'll read the NTSB report to see why they ruled out a missile.