...that thinks that the press WANT the EgyptAir crash to be terrorism, and are sidelining all other explanations (such as a collision) despite the fact that there will probably be actual evidence recovered before long.
The trouble is that there is a lot of weird stuff in the sky these days - military aircraft and drones, for example. If something like that was the cause its owners might not want to admit it. Given the lack of anyone claiming "responsibility" and the eagerness with which the press jumped on this bandwagon I'm thinking it's some sort of coverup, possibly just of incompetence servicing the plane, but maybe something like a collision.
And this morning they seem to be saying there was a fire on board. Although the BBC is being careful to say that the cause of the fire could be malicious or accidental/mechanical, it does show that the printed press could have jumped to conclusions way too early.
The lack of anyone claiming responsibility for it makes me suspicious. Most groups are only too keen to make it known if they make a successful attack
Egypt could well want it to be terrorism to divert attention away from its own security lapses. "If France, with its recent terrorist atrocities, cannot stop terrorism in the skies, how can anyone?" sort of argument. All rather mute if it turns out to be a tragic accident.