Phil Golin
I think calling the AAIB suggestion a "theory" is a little bit too optimistic - they do not think there was enough water to form sufficient ice, and can't model a reasonable event to cause damage.
I think it is merely something they are investigating
good explanation.
It would be nice if we on Pprune could agree on the use of words like "theory", "postulation" and "speculation"
If a consensus can agree I'm willing to adopt them
my current use is:
"theory" starts with a premise at the beginning while explaining links in the chain and ends with a conclusion to the exclusion of all other paths (linkages)
"postulation" starts with a premise anywhere in the chain of events and only to explain the linkage to another link in the chain
"speculation" starts with a premise and jumps directly to a conclusion while excluding confirmation of the links in the chain
My current creed is:
I am inclined to start with "postulations" and only after I see enough links fitting that postulation do I assign a "theory" to it.
I take "cons" against a theory as serious as I do the "pros"
I apply Occams razor to determining both the "Pros" and the "cons"