My thoughts,
Right now, this hour, every hour, every day, every week, somewhere in the world, there are aircraft departing and arriving 4-5 miles behind a preceeding B-747. Now, IF anyone seriously believes the wake turbulence from a JAL 747 can BREAK the structure of a sound airframe 4.3 miles behind, then ALPA, APA, NASA, etc. should be DEMANDING FAA immediately increase the required spacing to ten miles or four minutes.
But that's not likely to happen, is it? Because no majority seriously believes it. If it were so, we'd have airplanes being damaged and/or crashing on a weekly or monthly basis at least. Before the current standard became rule, we had much smaller aircraft operating even closer behind 747's. And while several suffered severe upsets, even crashed, they weren't falling apart in mid air.
The JFK controller DID NOT release AAL587 fifteen seconds early, she released the aircraft with the required 4+ miles in trail. The rule book says either standard may be applied.
I can buy the idea that wake turbulence was a link in the accident chain. But there HAD to be other factors in play.
And for the record, I also believe that to assume a professional pilot was deliberately dancing on the rudders enough to cause a .8 G sideload or more is bordering on insane as well. That's akin to the peak cornering capability of a VERY expensive sports car.
Something more was at work here.....