Apparently neither wingtip nor pod strike (according to Havarikommissionen 11/4), but No 1 T/R petals not (fully) stowed (either on G/A or landing). IF theory that No 1 T/R petals already didn't close after the aborted landing were to be correct, a number of things would have had to occur at that time. A 320 would have needed WOW on both MLGs AND engines retarded to idle to allow T/R deployment in the first place (contrary to e.g. 737 where T/R depl. is possible below 10 ft RA). Big Q is then why they didn't pursue that initial landing. They obviously didn't and they likely engaged TO/GA THR. Another big Q is then why subsequently only the No 2 T/R petals fully closed. At least this allowed full fwd THR on eng No 2 to develop, while, as per design with petals not fully stowed, No 1 automatically switched to fwd idle. To note that in this situation (also as per design) A/T would have been disengaged automatically. This, plus perhaps momentary crew confusion up front and some delay of spooling up No 2 from idle, plus the drag inducing No 1 deployed petals could explain the feeble fwd and vertical speed profile in the G/A. One already knew it is apparently possible to fly and land an 320 with idle fwd THR and petals/sleeves open on one eng. At least with V2500 engines and already at a good speed (March 2004), but if it can be avoided IMO the better...