There are lots of speculations (and that is normal) but also a lot of untruths which can easily be disproved.
This crash landing was relatively soft. If an aircraft stalls only a very few feets above the ground, it disintegrates completly, normaly stalling first over the wings, it falls into a spiral and the wing impacts first. This is clearly not the case.
It is therefor no stall, it just landed into soft ground. You can also easily determine from the traces of debries that it had a relatively long ground "roll" distance of several hundreds of meters.
Problem is just that an aircraft like this cannot support a landing into soft ground: first the gear collapses and gets sheared off, then the engines, then the rest of the lower body parts.
If there would have been a stall, most probably nobody would have survived.
I want to reiterate (as in the Hudson River thread) that Airbus has somewhat some advantages over a 737 in this crash scenario because with its fly-by-wire suit it is much easier to be controlled close to ground and stall speed. What saved all lives in NYC may have cost 9 in AMS. Also BA's 777 accident in LHR might have profited from its speed control regime.
Dani