Bearfoil, I mean that in a literalist sense.
mm43 has performed excellent analysis indicating that the plane hit the water about where it was four minutes before it ceased ACARS transmissions. Actual indications are North West of that point by some modest amount - at right angles to the nominal flight path. The plane was traveling at a speed that requires 25 seconds at 1 g to bring it to a stop. That's a few miles to the North East of where it was when the troubles began.
What halted its forward velocity vector and pushed it North Westwards by a goodly amount? I don't know.
One scenario, presuming mm43's work is good, has the plane making a 180 degree turn starting slightly before that last position report just before everything turned to poop. They hit the water about where such a turn would have placed them had they
managed to complete it while rapidly losing altitude. That, of course, begs the question, "But why?"
Something applied an awful lot of energy to the plane if it simply made that last position report and then sank down to the water in a flat spin with or without a vertical stabilizer and rudder. I am not sure what could have done that. I could see such a loss of control, flat spin or spinless spin, and all that scenario if the ocean tracks of the wreckage traced back to a point further to the North East along the planned flight path. In fact that is a scenario I entertained and partially accepted until the estimates of the impact point based on found wreckage started coming in. Then I put two and two together. If the VS was ripped off in the air the pattern of the rip in the tabs that fit into the clevis joints would be quite different. Damage to the sides of the VS at the bottom would be different. So I had to discard the idea in the face of data.
I am left guessing. You've heard my best guess. You don't like it. *I* would take that as a personal challenge to put the entire body of knowledge we've generated on the wreck and figure out another working scenario. Sadly, I've pretty much used up my imagination. I'm not happy with that tail cone scenario. But, it does almost fit the data. - Plane comes down tail low. Tail hits the water and is pushed upwards and applies a sudden deceleration to the plane. This leads to a water-skier's belly-flop. (This is such as you see when his skis dig into the water for some reason. Vertical person becomes horizontal person rather quickly and forward motion ceases.) The push upwards is worst at the tail. That applies a fracture stress to the tabs as the VS leading and trailing edges are pushed upwards and forward relative to the spar. I figure this all took place at a low forward speed to begin with. And it might give an impression from the wreckage of having a flatter approach to the water than actually took place. (I romantically envision the crew desperately trying to gain enough air speed to restart stalled engines. Maybe they made it. But they were too low and clipped the water trying to climb out of their dive. My cynical side says, "Prove it.")
Maybe that embellishment gets across what I see in my mind's eye better.
We have precious little data. So selecting a scenario that violates any of the data we do know becomes highly risky. But scenarios that do fit it all are risky to one's sanity, I fear.
What stopped the plane in mid air within a very short distance and threw it to the left of its track a not inconsiderable distance?
added:
I'll stop here. If this description does not do the job then continued talking past each other is counter productive.
{^_^}