Hi Lyman
I am not an accident investigator so am unable to draw conclusions from those photographs. From reading this thread I know you think they are important and that is your right so to do. My view is that there are two opposing views represented on this thread. One in it many guises doesn't accept the BAE report and will spare no effort in promoting their theories. The other (of which am a member) take the view that out of the available information present, the BAE report is the most useful in understanding what happened.
Where I do agree with those who don't accept the report or parts of it, is that the many other failures brought to the fore after this sad crash should be addressed but that doesn't mean that they actually caused the crash. In other words am of the view that even if all these points had been addressed before the incident the crash would have still occurred with the same awful outcome.
From previous conversations with you on this forum(when you were know as Bearfoil) I respect that you are trying to establish the truth. My path towards getting a better understanding of this tragic event is a different one to yours and therefore for me looking at the photographs you mention, will be of little value, as I am not expert enough to draw conclusions from them. The other reason am disinclined to view them is that it would mean that in order to be fair I should carefully study all the other evidence presented here that questions the report.
In science when something new is postulated it normally undergoes a peer review and if that is favourable it is then included in the body of scientific knowledge. Of course over time this theory will again be tested and if then found wanting the body of scientific knowledge will be revised to accept this new development. Why do I mention this. Well for my understanding of this incident to be increased or changed, then the BAE report will have to be challenged by another body of similar standing. As I have said earlier I am not an expert in this field and I therefore have to trust those who are considered to be so. I presume that other people posting here will not agree with my last point but may I suggest that in questioning the report you must have considerable confidence in your ability to understand third hand a very complex accident