The so called speculating drivel being pandered in the various aviation forums are really just check boxes in the trained investigators kit.
Most of these possibilities are easily assessed with a few facts in the earliest days following an accident. The facts come from the wreckage itself as well as interviews with the infrastructure (ATC, weather, grround maintenance, etc.) It's only after supporting facts are found that the investigation starts to dig deeper into the many speculative guesses on these discussion boards. In the great majority of these speculative "guesses" they are dismissed by the lack of supporting facts coupled with factual arguments against, in the earliest hours.
The real challenge is the laborious task of continuing to search for supporting or refuting facts against the remaining speculations on the list.
The real "drivel" and useless speculation ,in my mind, is when these message board discussions start generating phantom facts from hearsay, and opinions.
some things to keep in mind for most accidents (not just this latest one)
equipment failures in flight are typically announced to ATC before the radio is cut-off
One day at the accident site typically confirms or refutes mechanical causes, so listen and read carefully any debriefing from these qualified investigators, that might come in the first days (be wary of unqualified government officials)