An inference can be drawn from any piece of evidence be it physical, electrronic or witnessed, and I feel that the inference must be compared to the benchmark of "consistency" in that any inference drawn must be consistent with the other inferences from facts already known.
Speculation is fine, (even essesntial) if we maintain scrupulous adherence to consistency then a clearer view will reveal itself.
Mercurydancer,
Perhaps you've misunderstood the thrust of my post, or maybe I simply haven't stated it well enough.
I would agree with you entirely that there are some inferences that can be drawn from each piece of evidence, and I am certainly not suggesting that these should be discounted. However, I would say that the inference drawn has something to do with the level of expertise one has with the particular element of evidence, and this is where different contributors here each bring different strengths (and weaknesses).
Personally I know very little about the failure modes of vertical stabilizers/attach points and know nothing about rates and directions debris spread based on current movement, so I'll leave the inference drawing on such matters to others better educated to do so. When they do, with consistency to known facts, it makes for a valuable contribution to the discussion and that's certainly to be encouraged. It may also provide the rest of us a link back to another area where we can provide informed speculation that comes to make more sense in context with that contribution.
Where things have occasionally gone wrong is with incorrect inferences being elucidated by some without particular expertise and those inferences then being extrapolated into conclusions of what happened and/or why without there being any actual facts to support either the inference or the conclusions derived from it. I'm not sure if you've followed the entire thread but, at times, there have been some pretty strongly worded conclusions about what type of design/system/software/crew error must have been responsible for this accident and how this represents a particular failure of the manufacturer/operator/crew. It's these sort of speculations, not reasoned, informed and factually supportable ones such as you are suggesting, that I have been referring to.
In any event, what I think we all hope to achieve from the discussion is a better understanding of all the circumstances surrounding this accident and how that greater knowledge might improve our own procedures and decisions when confronted with similar circumstances as a pilot/passenger/dispatcher/engineer/designer or even accident investigator.
Cheers,
ELAC