lompaseo,
Some of what your viewing as postulations do not appear to be so. I would submit that the airplanes weight and center of gravity are both easily calculatable as being beyond acceptable limits based on verifiable documentation and observation. The additional heat can be calculated with a reasonably high level of accuaracy (specific to the initial takeoff roll overrough surfaces) and that portion of the runway was already out of service for all other operations for documented reasons. So we have a certain amount of information that falls much closer to stipulated facts then to speculation.
Going further the FDR shows significant rudder input beyond the norm coupled with well below expected results for such an input. This would seem to demonstrate less then acceptable nose wheel steering performance initially as well as a clearly documentable problem with regard to the planes tracking. Since this deficiency predates both the tire blowout and impact with the runway debris it can be reasonably viewed as the 1st domino that fell. It is further possible to begin to calculate the additional heat and pressure added to that from the rough surface and normal operational stress.
So before you get to any consideration of the eyewutness (who would be deemed as expert witnesses acting in a professional capacity in a US court) you have a significant measure of forensic evidence that documents both heat and lateral stress beyond the anticipated load and the rating on the tires. Placed in the context of the historical issues predating the event which document a minimal margin of safty it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the combination of takeoff configuration, local conditions (wind, runway surface etc) and the combined lateral stress and heat do to the combination of alignment and torque from the control surface input.
In effect all the required holes the moment the takeoff roll started. This leads us to the biggest flaw in the french legal system. In the US and British system the judge acts as the administrative function in applying the law. The role of the jury is to resolve any issue of truth as it relates to the facts. Here the administrative panel determines what "the truth" is. Any reasonable person with a high school education can really determine that this accident was decades in the making and that combination of circumstances reflects entirely on the airline and its operational and flight procedures. Viewed from this perspective the total absense of AF as a defendent points clearly to a political coverup at the highest level.