(I've read through all posts)
Some comments:
Seems to me like the foward fuselage failure (break apart) is due to buckling. If you see the foward part of the break up area is also turned inwards, and it's more visible on the left side pictures. Even more in the front close to the cockpit there are buckled sections.
If you see the inside of the fuselage (the inside window frames) are also moved foward (caompare the outter frame with the inner frames).
I think the nose plunged down in the mud and 'stopped' puting huge loads that failed the fuselage by buckling. I think the worst place to be in that plane would be front rows, infront of the front break up.
The break up of the tail may not be that severe, things that are allowed to break apart, take their energy withthem and don't develop high g loads.
The things protruding out behind the cockpit are also strange and I think indicate huge forces on the front part of the aircraft. Would be good to know if cabin crew that sits in the front facing the back, straped, have survived...
In general I agree with Dani BUT I think that what killed the pilots was the muddy field. I think the front part broke at the last moments before stoping, due to the nose plunging into the mud stoping it abruptly and the fusalege failed due to buckling infront of the wing. If the nose had broken earlier (shear loads - vertical forces) from hiting the ground it wouldn't have been there.
Another note.. I doubt the forces where 2g. Things in aircraft cabins are designed not to be seperated at 9g vertical 7-9g horizontal and 3-4g sideways (as far as I remember). A318 hard landing in LCY recently was 3g nothing broke apart (aircraft has to be checked I guess).
Someone said sth like more than 2g on A/C and the A/C is damaged. No way!!! Nothing will break apart at 2-3-4g... BUT there will be cracks created and the life of the aircraft is seriously reduced. It has to do with the magnitude of the alternating load in fatigue. An aircraft at 1.5g may have a life of 30,000h at 2g it can be cut at half.
There is diffirence in what 'damage' is for an engineer and what damage is for a passanger. If passangers knew how many 'damaged' parts are in a plane they would go by boat (whoever flames back at this obviously has little depth in aviation safety issues).
Strangely I believe this was a good emergency landing (deliberate or not I don't care), defenitely sth was VERRYYY wrong before.
The thierd person in the cockpit may have been another pilot or stuff of turkish airlines, flying for free. Don't tell me it doesn't happen or that they would mention it.
P.S: There is way to much spam in this forum guys... Why are you reposting newsagencies data... We all read this...
Sorry for the long post.