To play devils advocate and by no means suggesting a factual conclusion, what's to say that his narrative is fact? It's one live guy's word against a dead guy with no black boxes to say otherwise. What if one wanted to save face after bungling something up and surviving? This would be one clean way to walk away without any blemish on a record.
If it really is "terrorism" as the media is painting it, with the location close to Pratt & Whitney (though probably a coincidence with the airport of departure nearby), then so be it and label as such. But if the other side is true in which the reports are saying the guy was depressed and his family was forcing him to become a pilot even though he didn't want to, then that is sad.