McGintry is right, the aircraft never really got off the ground, the tire track evidence off the end of the runway and on the berm makes that clear.
Punkalouver, you said:
The aviation industry teaches us to be go -oriented at high speed.
That is exactly why these pilots died in this particular accident, because they were go-oriented at V1, at the end of a chain of events. I personally think that this is one of the most interesting discussion points about this accident.
Regarding "insurance assessments", I don't know why ANYONE would rely of this as contributing ANYTHING factual to this accident investigation. Depending on the integrity of the insurance company, the "assessment" is nothing more than the conclusion reached by the insurers, as to whether they will be liable for a claim or not. In this case, if an "assessment" was made this early in the investigation, then the insurance agent (or company) MAY only be stacking out it's position in a potential claim dispute. This company may not be doing this, but in any case, an "insurance assessment" should ALWAYS be looked upon as a document that's potentially biased, due to the obvious conflict of interest for the insurance company. In any event, the description of the cause (or causes) of the accident will merely reflect the decision made by the insurance company, as to whether they are liable for the claim or not. It shouldn't have any direct bearing on the actual causes, which are best determined by the government's accident investigating agency.