It seems to me that where these threads go wrong is when someone fixates on a single fact.
A single fact can disprove a theory, but it can never prove a theory. And a theory is only viable when it accounts for all the facts known.
An example: It was noted previously (multiple times - I'm not specifically responding to the immediately preceding posts) that the dispersal of the remains is not firm evidence of an in-flight breakup, because ocean currents could also play a role in the dispersal, or even account for it completely.
As far it goes that is reasonable. But it ignores other reported evidence - e.g. ocean currents do not account for the reports that some victims had all clothing ripped off, or had ceased to breath by the time they encountered water (no water in lungs).
But those other data points themselves do not "prove" in-flight breakup either. Other explanations are still open.
We have pictures of a VS no longer attached to the rest of the aircraft. A data point. I see no evidence one way or the other as to when the VS ceased to be attached: At 35,000 ft? At 15,000 ft? At 0 feet?
I see a VS in which the failure point appears to be in the aluminum-alloy supports, not the composite structure - but am perfectly prepared to be corrected on that.
As far as I'm concerned, there are only four clearly established facts in this tragedy: The plane departed radar range, the flight was in the vicinity of tropical convective weather, a series of maintenance/failure messages were sent, and remains have been found on the ocean.
What occured amidst and between those knowns is still a very large black hole bespeckled with a few dots of light.