I've been fascinated by this entire thread and have a couple of thoughts. The more of these threads you read the more and more you become aware of the tremendously fickle winds of fate that bring all the holes into alignment. My questions flow along the following lines...
1) This is all based on a prosecutors findings less then a year ago. Given that it's an AF plane i'm amazed not a single person from AF is accountable with regard to the weight/balance and maintenance issues the plane clearly had.
2) Given the delicate issues clearly documented by numerous other tire issues I can't believe that a runway check wasn't done immediately preceding the takeoff roll. After all stuff does fall of planes from time to time.
3) Given the documented irregularities in the judicial proceedings specific to the Airbus crash I would have serious misgivings specific to both the custody and chain of evidence here. From my admittedly non ring side seat this comes across as an entirely politically affair. Accordingly I wouldn't trust or accept a "verdict" given my 3 administrative judges in a non jury proceeding.
From an SLF's perspective the tires had a history of "issues". The plane was overweight, improperly maintained, out of balance and on a runway with such significant degradation as to be out of service for a portion of it's length. To overlook all of this and attempt to magically pin the blame on an other "hole in the cheese" that may or may not even exist (even if the titanium strip contributed it should have been found prior to the takeoff roll IMO) is farcical.
Sadly (given its historical and aesthetic appeal) it's a plane that should have been out of service well before this tragedy occurred.