Based on a complete read of this post, it seems: 1.This was a "used" jet.
2.The manufacturerfelt the needtogo on the defense.
3. The pilot was skilled. (skill in flying doesn't necessarily define skill in building/engineering)
4. There was a structural failure in flight.
5. There are pictures of the carnage (which Iwill go to my grave wondering how anyone can determine the "exact" cause of failure from a mutilated pile ofbalsa, plastic, and metal, or the true blame of said failure without the additional costs of millions of dollars worth of flight data recording equipment and instruments on board)
6.Thatthis falls underthecontinuing thought process in the current millennium of "it's NEVER MYFAULT"
7.Why isn't the original seller being hammeredto death on a thread?
8. From what I see, "that dog ain't gonna hunt no more" (pick up the pieces, get some Kleenex, start allover)
9.One needs to research theirmanufacturer's productextensively before investing that much money into a toy. (Please don'thang me from the nearest oak tree describing thishobby as a toy.)
10. Onewho optionsto spend thousands of dollars on a machinewhich defies gravityhad better have the financialwherewithal to lose that money when gravity wins.

This all said, as a newbie in this hobby, I'vesmacked so many planes from about every conceivable fault known to RCflight, I'm willing to admit that pretty much 110% of them have been pilot error (believing that"piloterror" also is contiguous with "pilot responsibility"). Thusmeaning100% of EVERY action associated withthe operation of that aircraftfallsunder the responsibility of the person twistingthoselittle sticks! 11. That popcorn bowl is empty......someone please bring some more.