If, for whatever reason, the plane lost its vertical stabilizer first, then it would quickly tumble out of control. Without the vertical stabilizer, the plane would be dynamically unstable (negative stability) in the yaw axis. That means that any diversion from straight flight would quickly become worse instead of dampening out when you have positive stability.

Furthermore, the problem would be compounded due to the plane's swept wings. When you have a steep yaw movement in a rearward swept wing aircraft, one wing moves more directly into the relative wind. That causes a rolling motion in the same direction as the yawing moment. To see what I'm saying, look at the top view of a swept wing airplane. In straight flight, the relative wind flows over both wings equally. If the plane yaws sharply, say to the left, then the right wing meets the oncoming air more directly than the left wing. This causes the right wing to generate more lift, causing the plane to roll to the left. This scenario seems to match the description of the FDR data.

As for the engines, prelimary examination shows no sign of catastrophic failure or bird/foreign object injestion. Detailed examination of the CVR data indicates both engines were running normally when the crew reported losing control. This seems to indicate that the engines weren't the cause of the crash.

Ok, if that's the case, why did both of them come off? Well, those engines weigh close to 10,000 pounds each and produce over 40,000 pounds of thrust each. If the vertical stabilizer came off first and the plane started some unusual gyrations, it's possible the engine pylons were overstressed. Engine pylons are strong, but they're also designed to break away before damaging the wings. It's possible there were some lateral loads far in excess of what the engineers ever though the plane would experience. In addition, the engines are closer to the main impact site than the vertical stabilizer, indicating the vertical stabilizer fell off first.

As for the reports from at least one other airline pilot of the engine smoking during takeoff, I really don't know. Perhaps that engine was smoking because it was nearing a 10,000 hour overhaul or because a fuel regulator was out of adjustment. Or, perhaps the witness was mistaken. Even highly experienced witnesses make mistakes from time to time.

All indications seem to be that the vertical stabilizer or perhaps the rudder broke off of the plane first. It seems the point of failure was on the composite components rather than the attach bolts. Believe me, the top composite engineers and scientists in the US and Europe are looking into this closely. Even if this turns out to be a freak accident to that one airplane, we need to know why that one failed. For example, the plane had to have doublers and rivets applied to one of the 6 composite attach points on the vertical stabilizer before delivery back in 1988. Is it possible this repair didn't hold up over time? If so, then what must be done to all of the other planes that have had similar composite repairs?

The ramifications of this accident could be enormous. Virtually all Western built airliners made in the past 20 years have used composites with the percentage of the total aircraft increasing with each new model. If there turns out to be a fundamental aging problem with composites or with their repair techniques, it could cost a tremendous amount to fix the airline fleet.

The "conspiracy kooks" comment was directed at those who know virtually nothing about aerodynamics or aircraft operations but just KNOW that this crash had to be an act of terrorism or sabotage. Furthermore, they KNOW that we're not being told the truth because the government wants to protect the airline industry.