Again my problem with the subtle translation differences by whom ever between french and english leave me with questions.
1) I accept that the flight path of the aircraft could/would have been in a straight line for most of its descent . Does this match what the BEA meant?
2) I accept that the damages seen to the floating parts imply that they were within the fuselage section when it hit the water. Does this match what the BEA said?
3) I agree that the aircraft struck the water on its belly. Does this match the BEA report?
4) I can not conclude any words attributed to the report what the pitch, roll or actual heading of the aircraft was from the english words. Am I missing something? or are some posters assuming these axis?
5) Inspite of item (2) above is it possible that the aircraft might have broken into two or more large fuselage sections at altitude before hitting the water or do the BEA words preclude this?