rmac agree that the stall warning 'inversion' that occurred in this accident was likely a significant contributor to the confusion on the flight deck in the later part of the descent.
My understanding is that although the aircraft remained stalled throughout its descent, the stall warning ceased because the forward airspeed was too low to allow valid AOA measurement. Is there a flaw in this logic? Surely an aircraft is always stalled if it is in the air and has a forward airspeed so low that AOA cannot be measured, whatever the AOA. Why would you program the stall warning to stop under these conditions?
Related to the absent stall warning and the confusion it may have created; to what extent does the group feel that, absent reliable airspeed indications, the crew assumed that with engines at full thrust throughout the descent and no stall warning, it was not possible to be or remain stalled?