You do neither yourself or this thread any credit.
I suggest you go away until you have grown up a bit.
It's SOP with you isn't it? You see something you don't like and you attack the author rather than the content. My point is absolutely valid. There are significant portions of the events during that flight that you cannot know. But from a hole in the ground and some wreckage, you, (and others), manage to conjure up a sequence of events that lead to a conclusion you like.
It amuses me that several here allow themselves to simply accept "simulations" from Boeing as reasonably accurate accounts. I quite clearly remember being told in the mid 80's when a Mk I went in in the Falklands killing several friends of mine that we were not to discuss the DASH runaway because there may be legal ramifications for Boeing. They were the same company when this aircraft flew into the Mull as they were in the mid 80's and have no interest in having the failures, faults and shorcomings in their airframes brought to light.
The FADEC software would be a joke if it weren't such a serious failure at the most basic level. To hear that it can't be independently audited is laughable... It contains known bugs that have manifested themselves in unpredictable activities... Yet it has full authority over both engines simultaneously. That's lunacy if you are the inventor and are flying the aircraft yourself. To put it in numerous airframes and send others out to fly it borders on attempted murder.
You keep toeing the party line Baston, you're a credit to your leaders. Those leaders whose lack of integrity has them disregarding their own rules at the cost of their subordinates. Like you, they should be ashamed of themselves.