BEagle is quite right, it's not about apportioning blame, it's about assessing whether the authorities are doing their jobs and exercising their responsibilities adequately with this report.
It's about asking whether (if there was more to it than a simple tyre failure) the true causes of the accident have been properly recognised, and what is being done to make sure it doesn't happen again.
I'm glad they grounded Concorde and beefed up tyres and tanks, but I'm beginning to think that grounding Air France and re-training everyone wouldn't be an even more appropriate step!
Kramer:
There are plenty of examples of people surviving crash landings (I'd prefer to call them forced landings) - Sioux City may have touched down on the runway, but it ended up on rough ground at the kind of speed you were talking about. And even though it touched down with damned near 70° angle of bank, half those on board walked away. Kegworth hit a slope while on final approach. Numerous other aircraft have survived excursions into the overrun on take off or landing. There is no reason to suppose that Concorde would not have fared just as well in the terrain around Le Bourget.
On the other hand, no-one ever survives the classic stall/spin accidents which result from fools trying to 'stretch the glide'.