If you cannot be sure anything is 100% True, then faith has to take over to varying degrees. It's news and government, they are not gods and not worthy of any faith. If they were accurate in the high 90% range I may be more apt to believe them. Yes, accidents do happen, but two captains on board? It only took 5 hours to reach a conclusion with complex mechanical systems and electronic systems? It probably took an hour for officials to get out there? What type of officials were they? Mechanics and electronic experts? If you were in a car, killed 6 people in an accident, and you were in good health how long do you think it would take to assess blame and make sure you were telling the truth about your car losing power then having steering issues? Would you not want experts to look at all the mechanical and electronic factors?lol. what a disingenuous thought. No one has to be '100%' satisfied about the news to still give the updates coming from the government credence. A rational person understands that the early reports are almost never entirely correct. But that doesn't mean they are intentionally misleading, either.
If another source has facts that contradict the official report, those should be considered too. But 'it doesn't look like i think it should look' isn't contradictory proof here. Nor is the fact the the bridge didn't have bumpers.
That bridge had a previous strike that didn't cause this type of damage. Per a quick search, CNN had this
"In August 1980, a Japanese container ship crossing the Baltimore harbor lost propulsion about 600 yards from the Key Bridge after its electrical control board shorted out in the early morning hours. The ship then crashed into the bridge, colliding with one of its piers, according to a National Research Council report on ship-bridge collisions.
The collision ripped out a 30-foot section of a protective structure around the bridge’s concrete piling, according to a 1981 article published in The Evening Sun newspaper that cited a Coast Guard report on the incident. But the piling itself was only chipped, not significantly damaged. The accident caused $500,000 in damage to the bridge and required $350,000 in ship repairs, the Sun reported."
It goes on to point out one big difference is that ships are now much bigger.
"One major difference between the two accidents was the size of the ship. Data from the maritime tracking website MarineTraffic suggests the ship that crashed into the bridge in 1980, then known as Blue Nagoya, was about a third of the length and a fraction of the weight of the Dali."
So yeah, the government and news sources could be lying. Or they could be telling the truth as they currently understand it to be.
I'm not saying they are not right, I am saying there is much to question and that leaves a lot of room for conspiracy theories.