Perhaps it's a misperception on my part to view the fuselage as a composite structure rather than an aluminum tube. I was envisioning the fuselage taking the most damage and fracturing rather than tearing or bending like the more traditional aluminum tube structure. This possible misperception on my part was reinforced by discussions of possible lightning damage some time ago. For an aluminum tube that's not much of a problem. The currents travel in the skin. I'm still not sure how a composite aircraft protects its relatively delicate electronics when there is a lightning strike to the aircraft.
So for the record perhaps determining if the fuselage and pressure vessel were composite or metal would be a good point. They fail quite differently. (The VS joints were quite plainly composite structures based on what they looked like in failure.)
(I also note that the half second or so for a 36g deceleration means that envisioning the tail cone being flexed upwards applying more forces to the joints than they could handle is not as robust a concept as it should be. What DID make the VS break away with tears that look like it was pulled mostly upward and forward? Maybe it hit the ocean rather slowly, tail cone bent up, VS was "pinched off", and the sudden drag of the water pivoted the plane down into its belly flop. The composites ripped, fractured, and mostly sank. That will require finding enough critical pieces to reassemble. And it tells us nothing about the proximate cause of the disaster. It's the first 3 or 4 minutes of this disaster that are important, not the last few seconds.)
Boy howdy I can understand the problems the BEA is having trying to come up with theories. Nothing fits together neatly. Key puzzle pieces are simply not there.