The tailwind meant that as well as being a tonne over the structural limit, he was six tonnes over the appropriate limit for those conditions. And no, it didn't cause the fire, but nor did the fire cause the loss of the aircraft. It may eventually have done, but what caused the crash was that the crew lost control of the aircraft, which stalled and spun in. And if weight, out-of-limits aft cg and the unnecessary shut-down of an engine isn't germane to that, what is?
Question: Is anyone still content with the simple verdict that the failure of a tyre directly caused the loss of the aircraft and all those aboard?
Are you happy that none of the other factors explored here were seriously discussed in the accident report, even if they were then logically countered and discounted?
Is anyone happy that the report is completely impartial and that no 'political interests' are being protected by its conclusions?