I heard an argument yesterday that the collapsed Bridge was not a terrorist attack. They said it was because it was not preceded by an explosion, but why would it have to be preceded by an explosion to be an attack?   All the terrorists would have to do is mess with the undergirding - mess with just one of the pylons as Mr. Bramlett said in his article and wait for the weight to build up on the weakened bridge, which it did.
The thing that is scary is that if it wasn't a terror attack - it is just ONE more idea that the news media has given them to use against us!
 
Rene