If your interest is understanding what happened and how it could have been prevented, you would do far better to read the accident reports, in their entirety, carefully. A half dozen cherry-picked and context-free lines from a store of thousands of emails and other documentation are useful for getting clicks and stoking reader emotions to drive social media reposts but are typically less dispositive in failure analysis.
If I went trolling through all the emails about any multi-billion project, you don't think I could pull out a few to support whatever narrative I wanted to push? Especially if it was a nice juicy one that I could count on much of my audience to really want to be true?
Do you honestly think that there was anyone at Boeing that thought, "well, this aircraft is definitely unsafe and is going to kill a bunch of people, which will likely destroy this company and greatly damage the entire industry I've spent my whole career on, and that I and everyone I care for will regularly board and fly in, but hell, my stock options are due, so what the fuck, I think I'll organize a conspiracy to commit mass murder"? These were human and systemic failures that, like most human failures, were perhaps not innocent but understandable. Of course, there were warnings. There always are. The problem is that the real warnings are easy to pick out of the noise after the fact. Before the fact, they're mixed in with an awful lot of other concerns and warnings and complaints that will turn out to have been about nothing.
The main difference with this particular incident of corporate malfeasance and systemic failure is that the we have a process that will identify and publish what happened, why it happened, and what can be done to correct it. Now, that certainly doesn't generate a nice simple narrative with cartoonish villains that even the most vapid readers will cherish, but it does generate an incredibly safe commercial aircraft industry.
Lashing out at Boeing and its customers isn't cost free. Removing Airbus' competition won't make its aircraft safer. Destroying the major commercial carriers won't encourage small carriers to expand into the new hulls and training and maintenance standards that safe travel requires. Making air travel more expensive and balkanizing the industry into a maze of low-cost carriers will make it less safe, less tenable, and do enough damage to the world economy that inequality and unavailability will cost far more lives and livelihoods than even the most gratuitously simplistic narrative about Boeing could begin to compass.