The impact's description is confusing. It may or may not be purposely so. Vertical impact without forward movement extinguishes the need to even mention a 'direction', any direction would be irrelevent. If they meant 'in the direction of flight' I challenge them to support their conclusion. How in God's name can a heading be determined at impact? Even if it was 'important'. To prove the a/c fell 7 miles not experiencing a heading deviation? There is something more here than 'misunderstanding'.
What would BEA (and AB) have to gain by a statement that the 'direction of flight' (or even a 'straight line') was determined at impact? the intimation that the a/c was 'under control' to the 'end'. Non? Similarly, why the absence of pathologies? There is no excuse for not including the medical data. Do the discrepancies in condition of the passengers challenge your visual conclusion that the a/c "hit in one piece?"
The a/c hit intact. No scrutiny of the data, just 'intact'. These a/c don't 'disintegrate', you see. Likewise, 'From visual inspection', the Vertical Stabilizer' was attached until the a/c hit. Wait, we thought you said there was no forward momentum and the a/c landed (sic) flat? But it failed 'forward'. Quite the trick. Also, if there was a 'left twisting force' wouldn't that infer a rotation at impact, and not 'in a straight line'? Is anyone else having these problems with the report.
If the a/c was intact at impact, wouldn't it obviously hit along its longitudinal axis?