Hi. I agree with a lot of what you say. However, the information that I am referring to was plausible and already in the public domain, but that they were refut

Hi. I agree with a lot of what you say. However, the information that I am referring to was plausible and already in the public domain, but that they were refuting. Examples of this are the delay between the two comms engines being switched off; the Rolls Royce engine data; and their military satellites. All of this information was gleaned from reliable sources [their own military, the engine manufacturer, the normal ATC systems], and you are 100% correct in that it should have been verified before being released. But, my point is that the delay between the time the information first came to light [even through leaks] in release was just too excruciating long to comprehend. In the interim flatly they denied that the information even existed. I can only assume that some of the leaks from "official sources" were in part because they knew that materially[1] important reliable information was being held back. On another note - I do feel for the families. The mis-information, delays and incorrect denials are only adding to the speculation. There must be a better way to report information. [1]= Materially important to quelling speculation. Material to re-directing the futile searches in the wrong places.