arguments
Koudelka,
Nothing wrong with forwarding hypothesis.
Sabotage/Attack by drug dealers is an hypothesis. Wake turbulence is another hypothesis.
When you have two hypothesis, how do you discard one and support the other?.
In one word: evidence
What evidence has been found supporting the sabotage hypothesis?. None so far. US investigators reviewed the evidence and indicated that no evidence of sabotage has been found. Does a bomb or missile leave evidence?. You bet they do!. Plenty.
Has the sabotage theory been discarded?. Not yet. There may be other ways to sabotage an airplane other than bombs or missiles. So the investigation must continue.
However, does the wake turbulence hypothesis has supporting evidence?. Yes, indeed. Learjet getting very close to a large airplane (3.9 miles vs recommended 5 miles) and this very near the ground. There have been other crashes in similar circumstances.
Is the evident conclusive that it was wake turbulence?. No, not yet.
But the weight of evidence at this time supports the turbulence, wheras there is no evidence of sabotage.
As I said, the investigation continues. There may be other hypothesis later. But in order to arrive at a logical conclusion it is necessary that the evidence supports such conclusion.