Who wrote that article anyway? Some guy on the internet who looks at some pictures of the repair and thinks he knows what a bunch of engineers working on the problem didn't know?
Reading the article, it sounded more like sports commentary. He's looking at the evidence available to him and attempting to give his thoughts on what he thinks happened. It's not that he thinks he's smarter than the engineers, it's that he's interested in this incident, and he's using available public knowledge and his engineering interest to explain what he thinks about the event. Sorta like Bill Nye? It seems pretty obvious to me, given the way that he defines basic terms, that he's trying take a technical issue and explain it to a nontechnical audience.
I've got no basis for knowing if he's right or wrong, but if you think you know better, why not send him your ideas? He does seem to be reading mail.