Looking at it logically from a non professional POV...
We know the runway was wet and had recently been resurfaced and was ungrooved. We know the runway was on the short side. We also know one of the reverse thrusters was tiggered.
In other words conditions were not condusive to a short stopping distance.
We also know the plane skidded/aquaplaned and veered sharply to the left before crashing. We also know the plane was airborne when it crashed.
To me this suggests that the following occured:
The plane came into land and started to skid. The pilot tried to slow the plane using the one good reverse thruster. This would presumably cause the plane to pull on one side and possibly make the plane start to slide sideways.
When it became apparent that he wouldn't stop in time the pilot made the decision to take off again and put the engines into full forward. Due to the fact the plane is already sliding sideways and the thrust from the two engines is uneven this caused the plane to veer off at a sharp angle.
The plane becomes airborne enough to miss low obstacles but can't gain enough height to miss the TAM building.
My view therefore is that the accident was caused by a combination of problems which on their own would not have been a problem. (Short runway, poor surface, wet conditions, broken reverse thruster)
I'm also of the opinion that the pilots did all they could under the circumstances. Yes, if they'd played things differently they *might* have been able to bring it down intact. However, It should be remembered it was an unusual set of circumstances and the pilots had to make a split second decision. They had to make a call and unfortunately they chose the wrong one.
However, the decision that it was safe to land under these conditions should be questioned.