He's not a bully, he just wants to know what your evidence is, like all the rest of us.
I on the other hand do NOT pretend to KNOW what caused this tragedy
Au contraire! You repeatedly rubbish the expert opinions that say water ingress was not an issue and you accuse these experts of covering up the water ingress issue in some conspiratorial way. As you simply don't believe that water ingress was eliminated a factor the only logical conclusion is that you do believe it was a contributory cause. That means you're not pretending to know what caused this accident, you're saying, in an obtuse way, that water ingress was instrumental in the crash. If you allude to something like that then you simply
have to back it up with evidence. It's no good saying
I do NOT know what caused this tragedy, however I have NO doubt that this COULD have MAYBE been a contributory factor.
when everything you have said before that indicates that you think you do know what caused it and absolutely will not be persuaded otherwise.
Let me put a question to you. Is there
any way you could be persuaded that water ingress was not a factor in this accident? If so, who would be able to persuade you? If not, why do you think you we should consider you reasonable?