I've read all your responses in this thread, and to be honest, I don't really understand what point you're trying to make. I don't really see anyone else arguing against the fact that there are things that the 2 crews could have done to not crash the plane, and that their actions contributed to the crash. But is there something you disagree with the following?

1. In a safety critical system design, any change that results in fallible humans being more likely to crash their plane into the sea means the fault lies with the system, not the individuals.

2. I think people are (rightfully IMO) so angry with Boeing because so many of their actions look like they were cost-saving measures. If the system worked exactly as it did, but Boeing had been very clear about the difference in handling MCAS caused, which would likely have required recertification and additional retraining of pilots, I think people would have at least been somewhat more sympathetic. But it looks like so many of the MAX design constraints were driven by the bean-counter directive of "don't do anything that would require recertification", and that's why people are pissed.

> that their actions contributed to the crash ... the fault lies with the system, not the individuals

I believe these two statements are contradictory. The pilots were a contributing factor to the crashes. This needs to be investigated to determine why they did not respond appropriately, and corrective action taken. In addition to Boeing correcting the MCAS system, and the maintenance issues.

All contributing factors must be accounted for.

> I think people are (rightfully IMO) so angry with Boeing because so many of their actions look like they were cost-saving measures.

Some of this anger seems to stem from inaccurate, incomplete, and sensationalist reporting, such as the cost saving one. The problems with MCAS were in the software requirements for it. Not bugs in the software, not outsourcing the programming, not in the design of the airframe, etc. The fix is in the software, too. Using the correct software rules in the first place would have cost the same amount of money. Having the MCAS software compare the two independent AOA sensor readings would not have cost more money.