cazatou,
You are at it again. Your last post is full of nonsensical implications. You are implying that, if one believes that loose pallet springs possibly contributed to the accident (which I am not qualified to even have an opinion about), one must also accept that Mr Holbrook's estimate of the speed must also be true. That is total nonsense.
If a detached spring did contribute to the accident, according to Sq Ldr Burke it could affect all control functions. Could it not therefore affect their ability to climb or turn? Pretty distracting too I would imagine.
You say that the "fault disappeared without trace". This particular fault did not disappear "without trace". The pallet springs were detached after the accident.
You now imply that the fault occurred, if it actually did, before waypoint change. What justification can you possibly have for assuming that?
"Allowing the pilots to flare the aircraft in a last desperate attempt to avoid disaster" - why do you assume that it was under control at that time? What evidence do you have? Could it not be a co-incidence that it happened to be in that attitude at impact? I seem to remember one expert saying that the rudder position was most unusual and quite difficult to achieve in practise.
If I may say so, your arguments are becoming wilder and more undisciplined by the day. I wonder what your game is.