From my reading here it's clear that the captain was highly respected and very experienced (as would be expected). My interest here is twofold. 1st a natural curiosity with regard to identifying what the true holes in the cheese were and an interest in the mechanism of the inquiry.
With regard to the 1st the reduction in weight being specific to the tires indicates just how close to tolerance the typical demands were. The real concern is heat...not speed. The combination of a rough initial surface and improper loading (we can confirm the COG issue by interpolation of the ineffectiveness of control input during the takeoff roll that the nose wheels had less then ideal contact. So we had more weight (more heat), More friction due to surface conditions (more heat) more stress do to improper tracking (more heat) and well above normal torque on the sidewalls (more heat). So at the end of the day we have the basic formula - more heat x 4 = MORE HEAT.
To me the failure to mandate runway inspections for FO's prior to all concorde takeoff rolls (regardless of airline) is a disaster in the making.
Moving on to my comment specific to the "administrative arm". In a trial system the judge administers the trial in accordance to applicable law. He applies the "law" to the stipulated facts. In a jury system the jury weighs the evidence presented to reach a determination of "truth". Can this lead to poor results...sure. BUT it can also lead to the correct outcome. In fact it was fought for for the very reason that over hundreds of years trials were simply viewed as rubber stamp procedures. Reading the BEA report somethings jump out at you...as much for whats omitted as whats clearly stated. However even sticking to the official report certain things jump out procedurally. The most intriguing is the lack of attention to mandated operating parameters that were exceeded.
So once you have a formal criminal indictment that provides no mechanism to weigh the role of such clearly outlined transgressions or assign any blame you have an official witch hunt. The underlying questions specific to why bags were placed in the worst possible place with regard to COG (and not included on the load sheet). Why a runway unsuitable for use was ever assigned (and not rejected by the captain out of hand)? Why a plane with an incorrect undercarriage assembly (when tire failure has such catastrophic possibilities) was even in service? For a true and fair outcome these questions all need to be weighed against the other variables in play.
Instead we have a preset combination that clearly pre-states "Mr Continental in the Library with a titanium strip" as the primary culprit backed up by a few poor sods who got politically railroaded decades ago because no way no how would those planes have been pulled out of service by either nation for any reason.