Did the police ever catch the DC area sniper, you know, the 20-30 year old lone white (or was it olive skinned?) master sniper driving a white Chevy Astro?

Eye witness accounts, especially of aircraft accidents, are notoriously unreliable. Most people don't understand what they saw, so they try to comprehend it compared to things like movies. Accident investigations are painstaking affairs that can last for years in some cases.

Go back to the AviationNow article (which I trust infinitely more than conspiracy wonk websites) and read closer:

"Factual reports released yesterday by the board show Flight 587's all-composite tail broke at about 1.97 limit load, while the tail broken by Airbus during A300-600 initial certification tests ago failed at 1.93 limit load. Loosely, limit load is the highest load a primary structure -- such as the tail -- is expected to experience during a plane's service life. The certification standard is 1.5 limit load, referred to as ultimate load, so Flight 587's tail stood up to loads well beyond the certification standard, and as Benzon noted, appeared to fail near the value predicted by the certification testing.

Speculation in the months after the bizarre November 2001 crash centered on a flaw in the A300-600's all-composite tail, which was found well away from the main crash site."

What they ruled out was a flaw in the design and manufacture of the composite tail. It failed at a higher load limit that required. Now, read further (emphasis added by me):

"Benzon's statement puts on the record what many aviation safety sources have said privately for months -- that the Flight 587 probe has sharpened its focus to flight-control issues (DAILY, Oct. 28).

An animation of Flight 587's 103-second flight created by investigators and presented by Benzon showed why. As the A300-600 passed through what investigators have determined was the second of two wake vortices given off by a Japan Airlines Boeing 747-400 above and ahead of Flight 587, the AA plane's ailerons and rudder began large, simultaneous movements. The control surfaces moved in tandem with the control wheel and rudder pedals, leading investigators to conclude that the first officer, who was flying the plane, was moving the controls. The rudder inputs swung the rudder back and forth in rapid succession, helping generate enough force to snap off an airworthy tail."

In other words, either the copilot entered excessive control movements that led to the breakup or there's a problem in the flight control system.