Chugalug
<<So your final thought of "Classic CFIT" deserves inspection. If it was then case closed, but the evidence offered to support that (Boeing's Model) has been disproved ...>>
You don't need Boeing's simulation – just analyse the available data; if you are referring to the single aspect of the cruise climb, which was used as I recall by the AVM's or some such to conclude that they had selected an inapproprite rate of climb, I think you will find that this was based upon just the two heights, altitude update and impact – I have addressed this recently, pointing out that, with the limits of accuracy of the encoding altimeter, they may not have been doing much climbing at all until the last seconds – and yes, this one damning conclusion that they had selected the wrong rate of climb is wrong. But what else was it you think in the way of “evidence” that depended upon the Boeing simulation to support the CFIT?
<< … the crash site evidence strongly suggests that the aircraft was not in control immediately prior to the crash.>> No it does not.