Would pilots ever consider landing 'out of the sun'?
Somebody, with experience of flying in Tripoli had mentioned far earlier here that ATC prefers Runway 09 in the mornings simply because they don't like looking into the sun. In fact with the current slight Westerly winds at the time of the accident, Runway 27 should have been used.
Here are my two cents of the event (not the cause!)
Aircraft is configured for landing hence no GPWS warnings.
Crew lose situational awareness, at least temporarily.
No attempt is made to go around until:
The wheels touch the ground perhaps at a slight nose up attitude as would be expected during that phase of flight (I don't think any other section of the aircraft touched down at that stage. The parallel marks on the ground as depicted earlier against the length of the car seem pretty much like tire marks to me, while the portion in between is level and with no debris, which leads me to believe no fuselage contact was made. Also damage to the tires and landing gear seem to support a wheels first touch down)
At the point of touchdown, the crew reacts with Go-Around power.
The aircraft seems unable to climb as the gear starts running into little trees and bushes.
The nose is raised significantly and the aircraft perhaps lifts off the ground entirely but stalls in a high nose up attitude and is brought back down, this time the tail hitting first and separating, as well as perhaps doing a few cartwheels.
Without the tail the rest of the aircraft rapidly pitches down and impacts with a lot of energy.
The engines, as they are designed separate quickly and end up as they are, a few hundred meters East of the tail. So does the undercarriage.
The wings somehow travel the furthest distance and end up at the far eastern side of the crash site.
Just my theory, I am glad I wasn't there. RIP