RE:
Too many people are grasping at straws and thinking that somehow the machine or the warnings had a big impact on the accident. It didn't, the PF was the one who made the NU inputs and it wasn't because of cognitive overload and not hearing the stall warnings - there were three pilots. The PF panicked and went into shock pulling back on the stick. That's all there is to it
Though I agree with much of what you say in the post that contains the above quote (and other posts you've made), I have some difficulty with your assertions -- based on the facts as we know them so far -- that: A. The aircraft's instrumentation (or lack thereof) was not a contributing factor, and B. The source of the PF's actions was "panic".
If we are investigating accidents today for the purpose of learning lessons so as to avoid, or minimise the chances of, making the same mistakes again, we have to be very careful not to over simplify what happened and why; especially when it comes to the human. Of course the actions of the PF (primarily), the PNF (a close second), and even the Captain, are the prime "causes" (in terms of specific actions at the time) of the loss of the aircraft. But, if you are saying that there is nothing to be learned here about instrumentation, display presentation, and human behaviour, in addition to your points about AF procedures and training, I think you're missing out on the notion that the ultimate goal of investigators is to try to get as close as possible to the "why" (actually "why's"). In that light I believe there is more we can learn from this event, including in the areas of displays, warnings, controls, etc; as well as the obvious ones such as CRM, procedures and training (both in terms of AF specifically and industry wide).