It came out in public NTSB hearing in Wash DC that the Airbus 300 is different in rudder than other large airliners, especially Boeings. The A300, with both engines operating, and at speeds higher than used for takeoff and landing, has higher sensitivity and correspondingly greater rudder deflection for the same pedal travel. It also has a higher breakout force, the minimum force on the rudder pedal required for it to move and thus actuate the rudder. It's in the neighborhood of greater than 50 lbs and perhaps greater than 75 lbs (don't know the actual check old Av Week issues). With as little as 2-3 inches rudder pedal travel the rudder will reach full deflection at the speed the AA 300 had the wake turbulence encounter. Airbus designed it this way.

Unfortunately AA flight training dept didn't know or teach this extensively enough to their pilots. Airbus engineers only intended the rudder to be used during an engine failure, like all other transport jets.

I did see the AA video while training at a now defunct MCI based airline, and was surprised. The instructor was clearly recommending aggressive use of rudder in one direction to help recover from a nose low or nose high upset.

TWA800 had blackhawk pilots, airline pilots, and military pilots who gave eyewitness testimony that they observed a missile launched from the sea hit the aircraft. Where are the witnesses for this occurring to AA587? Where is the evidence for explosions occurring to both of the engines? You're a Kook!

I can't crunch the numbers to confirm, but if an A300 lost it's vertical stabilizer under massive side loads the immediate stress on the engine attachments points could definitely produce a failure which could and did rip the engines away from the aircraft.