Something I'm finding very disturbing about this thread is the suggestion/implication that the NTSB and FAA are incompetent or corrupt. I'm wondering how many of the people making these suggestions have actually dealt with the FAA during an aircraft certification, or worked with the NTSB during an air safety investigation?
Having done both (I became a DER 25 years ago and I've been involved in multiple air-safety investigations), I find the implications insulting to those involved. My experiences have been just the opposite - people obsessed with covering every possible detail, with impeccable ethics and integrity.
Bubbers, do you honestly believe no one in the NTSB considered the possibility that the rudder movements were uncommanded, and looked at data/research that convinced them otherwise? Does Teldorserious really think that they faked the data that said the tail failed at 2.2x design load (well above the FAR mandated 1.5x)? These are not mindless government agencies we're talking about - they are real flesh and blood people. People that know that other peoples lives literally depend on them getting it right.
Now, that doesn't mean I always agree with the FAA/NTSB - heck I can think of times when the FAA and NSTB couldn't agree with each other, and even times when different branches of the FAA couldn't agree with each other. But these fell into the realm of honest differences of opinion between engineers - something that happens with some regularity between even the best engineers.
So, before you make another post slandering these people, you might want to think about what exactly you're posting.
As for aircraft design parameters that would allow a pilot (or terrorist) to break an airplane tail on purpose, it seems to me that a pilot (or terrorist in control of an aircraft) has the ability to intentionally crash an airplane pretty much any time they want, no matter how strong we make the tail
