OK, just imagine a scenario here. Bear with me - I'm not trying the defend or attack anyone here - I'm just trying to put a different perspective on this discussion.
Imaging there's this chap called Kevin the boy-racer. One day, Kevin is cleaning his beloved Ford XR3i Turbo nob-mobile, when he notices that the rear bumper has worked loose. Rather than go to Ford and pay for some new brackets, he decides to fudge something together in his garage, using bits of old scrap metal.
Pleased that he can now buy some more speakers with the money he has saved by not buying the proper brackets, he goes out for a razz around town late that evening.
Whilst driving down a 70mph dual carriageway, the home-made brackets work loose and the bumper falls off. Unfortunately, Kevin has got his music on, so he doesn't hear the bumper fall off.
A few miles behind him is a woman, returning from visiting relatives, with her two children in the car. It's dark, so the woman doesn't see the bumper lying in the road, but as she hits it it bursts her tyres, and she spins off at 70mph and tragically hits a tree. Both her and her children are fatally injured.
So. Who's fault was this accident?
Is it the boy racer, for not using the proper parts, or do you simply say "sh!t happens" ?
In the concorde crash, there were several contributing factors, the Continental strip being one of them. If any one of them had not happened, the accident would not have occured.
The way the French are isolating just the CO strip is not acceptable. They should hold the other factors EQUALLY accountable.
That said, nobody can argue that if CONTINENTAL had used ALUMINIUM instead of TITANIUM (as per the manufacturers instructions), THIS INCIDENT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.