lomapaseo;
I suspect that people very close to the investigation allready have some very positive clues for and against many of the theories postulated on this board.
I think so. And here we begin to enter the territory which
Sidney Dekker discusses so well in his "
Field Guide for Understanding Human Error"..."hindsight". In fact, the entire thread is a wonderful lesson in "determining cause" both in accidents and in human affairs, isn't it? We don't know, so we each draw on our experience, our prejudices, our history and our training. As you say, very soon, many posts will be seen as, "having been prescient", (very likely without good reason except luck and some good guessing!), and others will be dumped into file 13 and the next round of rabbit trails will begin..."Why did the crew....? etc" in terms of "attempted rejects", "retracted slats/flaps", etc, etc etc.
The key in the end is Dekker's point: What made sense to the crew at the time such that they made the decisions that they did? And if those who posited the various scenarios about returns to the gate, including some very poignant and bluntly honest posts I recall, how will, if shown to be the case, will "the killer items" be dealt with from here on in?