PJ2
My personal opinion on the cause of the accident has not been offerred. As I said, the cause of previous accidents was often proven not to be related in any way to terrorism. To promote this theory was not my point.
I simply point out a change in behaviour from a few years ago by the important people in front of the cameras.
To eliminate the subject in the early stages over anything else? They could have picked many possibilities, or denied them, yet they really seemed to promote the idea that a thunderstorm broke up the aircraft.
Our colleagues who fly these machines every day they work now tell us that the theory is at the extremes of possibility.
The irony is that facts are facts, regardless of the reason. Whatever caused this tragedy, your odds of encountering the same problem if you fly on one of these are now considered the same whether freak of nature, a one-off, or anything else. That is why it makes no sense to exclude or promote an idea over another. The statistics of dying remain the same if you are SLF or crew.
I'd rather fly 6'000 miles (and often do) than drive, sail, walk or run. I will live longer by flying so I will continue to do so.