Great Bear,
As Chris Scott has said (eloquently so), precision is unnecessary thus far. Not a conscious mistake, but I was using your number. My purpose in noting that there were more identified remains than the 43 mentioned in BEAII was to illuminate a device BEA have used, and committed disrespect for those unmentioned. Only those injuries considered useful to support the conclusion of 'seated, vertically accelerated' were noted, and those of the others not mentioned at all. This is a callous act in my view, again, too soon for conclusions, and to present evidence at all, before all hope is lost of recovery of the recorders is precipitous.
More examples of minor propaganda? Where is the photograph of the spoiler? Was it left out due to its marked difference in the sequence of destructive forces at work?
Where is the opinion on the Leading edge collapse of the V/S? With sufficient Lateral energy to fail the V/S on AA587, it too looked in rather good shape after it fell into the sea from altitude. Compare? Contrast?
Why is the Vertical take up arm featured as substantive re: Vertical failur? Look at the environment in the photo closely, The end of the arm failed in the vertical, but the Hinge is undamaged? The "Lateral Rods" between the V/S paired mounts show failure, but look closely, the failure was not in the vertical at all, but in the designed for direction, laterally. Why is the attachment point for the V/S a tab of Resin inside a saddle of Steel? Two Phase does not do focal Stress well at all, but makes up for it in its resilience when Stress is "Spread". Why are the Lateral rods attached to the same rail? With a stagger, they could be twice their length, and save the V/S in case of critical lateral loading, even past the failure and loss of the Rudder. Ah, Weight and Money.
At some point I'll attempt to bring together the thoughts of the devil's advocate.
Every table set for investigative thinking and discussion should have at least one maverick, no?
all the best
bear