At the very least, consider the Vertical Stabilizer. Mounted in the fuselage similarly to AA587, no lesson was learned about sequestered stress. Three hard points to support the V/S/Rudder when each of these two failed fins show that the Rudder is mounted in a way that spreads stress, keeping it attached while the Fin blows off. Vertical take up arm (only one) failed in the vertical; the seven attachments of the Rudder were undisturbed, and that in the Plane not addressed by the axis' architecture.
Bearfoil,
Having read this Thread and the previous one, you have postulated this Idea multiple times. Still it seems to contradict all findings. (Please take some time and carefully check the pictures of damage and the direction of buckling of the attached aluminum structures or the ribs of the VS in the second BEA report).
Why do you insist so much on this theory? Despite the fact that there is not the slightest evidence that would support it ?
And please don't refer to the apparently visually intact vertical stabilizer, that thing ALWAYS remains almost intact (check the ones of Perpignan or now even Afriqiah).
Andf even if it would have sheared of at altitude this would surely have been a secondary effect of overstress (No these things are not meant to survive 9g manouvers) to a preceeding loss of control. And which part fails first in an overstress -be it a wing or horizintal or vertical stabilizer- doesn't make much of a difference....